United States
Taft-Hartley Proxy Voting Guidelines
2017 Policy Recommendations
Published January 25, 2017
www.issgovernance.com
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAFT-HARTLEY ADVISORY SERVICES PROXY VOTING POLICY STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES ................................ 6
DIRECTOR ELECTIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections .......................................................................................7
Board Independence ........................................................................................................................................8
Board Competence ...........................................................................................................................................8
Board Accountability ........................................................................................................................................8
Board Responsiveness ................................................................................................................................... 11
Proxy Contests/Proxy Access — Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections .................................... 11
Independent Directors ................................................................................................................................... 12
Non-Independent Chairman .......................................................................................................................... 12
Excessive Directorships.................................................................................................................................. 13
Director Performance Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 13
Director Diversity ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Stock Ownership Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 15
Classified Boards ~ Annual Elections ................................................................................................................... 15
Board and Committee Size .................................................................................................................................. 15
Limit Term of Office............................................................................................................................................. 16
Cumulative Voting ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Failure to Act on Shareholder Proposals Receiving Majority Support ................................................................ 17
Shareholder Rights Plan (i.e. Poison Pills) ........................................................................................................... 17
Shareholder Access to the Proxy......................................................................................................................... 19
Majority Threshold Voting Requirement for Director Elections ......................................................................... 19
CEO Succession Planning ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Establish an Office of the Board .......................................................................................................................... 20
Director and Officer Liability Protection ............................................................................................................. 20
Director and Officer Indemnification .................................................................................................................. 20
COMPENSATION ............................................................................................................................................ 22
EVALUATION OF EXECUTIVE PAY ............................................................................................................ 22
Pay-For-Performance Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 24
Problematic Compensation Practices ............................................................................................................ 25
Compensation Committee Communications and Responsiveness ............................................................... 27
Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation – Management Say-on-Pay Proposals ......................................... 27
Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation – Management Say on Pay ...................................... 28
Advisory Vote on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed Sale .................. 29
Equity Pay Plans .................................................................................................................................................. 29
Stock Option Plans ......................................................................................................................................... 30
Voting Power Dilution (VPD) Calculation....................................................................................................... 30
Fair Market Value, Dilution and Repricing..................................................................................................... 31
Burn Rate ....................................................................................................................................................... 31
Executive Concentration Ratio ...................................................................................................................... 31
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
2 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Evergreen Provisions ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options................................................................................................... 32
Restricted Stock ............................................................................................................................................. 32
Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) - Qualified Plans .................................................................................. 32
Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) – Non-Qualified Plans ......................................................................... 33
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) .......................................................................................................... 33
OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals ............................................................................................................. 33
Golden and Tin Parachutes ................................................................................................................................. 34
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION .................................................................................................................... 35
Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs ............................................................................................ 35
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS ON COMPENSATION .................................................................................... 35
Disclosure of Executive and Director Pay............................................................................................................ 35
Limit Executive and Director Pay ........................................................................................................................ 35
Executive Perks and Retirement/Death Benefits ................................................................................................ 35
Executive Holding Periods ................................................................................................................................... 36
Pay for Superior Performance ............................................................................................................................. 36
Performance-Based Options ............................................................................................................................... 36
Tax Gross-up Proposals ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) Shareholder Proposals ............................................. 37
Compensation Consultants - Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization ...................................................... 37
Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy .......................................................................... 37
Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”................................................................................................................. 37
Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment and Eliminating Accelerated Vesting of Unvested
Equity................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Recoup Bonuses .................................................................................................................................................. 37
Link Compensation to Non-Financial Factors ..................................................................................................... 37
Pension Plan Income Accounting ........................................................................................................................ 38
AUDITORS ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
AUDITOR INDEPENDENCE....................................................................................................................... 39
Auditor Ratification ............................................................................................................................................. 39
Auditor Rotation .................................................................................................................................................. 40
Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability ............................................................................................ 40
Disclosures Under Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act ....................................................................................... 41
Adverse Opinions ................................................................................................................................................ 41
TAKEOVER DEFENSES ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Poison Pills ........................................................................................................................................................... 42
Net Operating Loss (NOL) Poison Pills/Protective Amendments ........................................................................ 42
Greenmail ............................................................................................................................................................ 43
Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors/Fill Vacancies .................................................................................... 43
Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board .............................................................................................. 44
SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS ................................................................................................................................... 45
Confidential Voting.............................................................................................................................................. 45
Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings ...................................................................................................... 45
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
3 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent................................................................................................... 45
Unequal Voting Rights ......................................................................................................................................... 45
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend the Charter or Bylaws ............................................. 46
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Approve Mergers................................................................. 46
Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses............................................................................................................ 47
Exclusive Venue ................................................................................................................................................... 47
Fee-Shifting Bylaws ............................................................................................................................................. 47
Bundled Proposals ............................................................................................................................................... 47
MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS / CORPORATE RESTRUCTURINGS .......................................................................... 48
Fair Price Provisions ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Appraisal Rights ................................................................................................................................................... 49
Corporate Restructuring ..................................................................................................................................... 49
Spin-offs............................................................................................................................................................... 49
Asset Sales ........................................................................................................................................................... 49
Liquidations ......................................................................................................................................................... 49
Going Private Transactions (LBOs, Minority Squeezeouts)................................................................................. 49
Changing Corporate Name .................................................................................................................................. 49
Plans of Reorganization (Bankruptcy) ................................................................................................................. 50
CAPITAL STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................................... 51
Common Stock Authorization ............................................................................................................................. 51
Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends ............................................................................................................ 51
Reverse Stock Splits ............................................................................................................................................. 52
Preferred Stock Authorization ............................................................................................................................ 52
Adjust Par Value of Common Stock .................................................................................................................... 53
Preemptive Rights ............................................................................................................................................... 53
Debt Restructuring .............................................................................................................................................. 53
STATE OF INCORPORATION ............................................................................................................................ 54
Voting on State Takeover Statutes...................................................................................................................... 54
Reincorporation Proposals .................................................................................................................................. 54
Offshore Reincorporations and Tax Havens ....................................................................................................... 54
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY ........................................................................................... 56
Social, Environmental and Sustainability Issues ................................................................................................. 56
I. GENERAL CSR RELATED........................................................................................................................ 57
Special Policy Review and Shareholder Advisory Committees ........................................................................... 57
International Operations ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Affirm Political Non-Partisanship ........................................................................................................................ 57
Political Contributions, Lobbying Reporting & Disclosure .................................................................................. 57
Military Sales ....................................................................................................................................................... 58
Report on Operations in Sensitive Regions or Countries .................................................................................... 58
II. ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................................................................... 59
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 59
Investment in Renewable Energy........................................................................................................................ 60
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
4 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Sustainability Reporting and Planning ................................................................................................................ 60
Operations in Protected or Sensitive Areas ........................................................................................................ 60
Hydraulic Fracturing ............................................................................................................................................ 61
Recycling Policy ................................................................................................................................................... 61
Endorsement of CERES Principles ....................................................................................................................... 61
Land Use .............................................................................................................................................................. 61
Water Use............................................................................................................................................................ 62
III. WORKPLACE PRACTICES & HUMAN RIGHTS........................................................................................ 62
Equal Employment Opportunity ......................................................................................................................... 62
High-Performance Workplace ............................................................................................................................. 62
Workplace Safety ................................................................................................................................................ 63
Non-Discrimination in Retirement Benefits ........................................................................................................ 63
Fair Lending Reporting and Compliance ............................................................................................................. 63
MacBride Principles ............................................................................................................................................. 63
Contract Supplier Standards ............................................................................................................................... 64
Corporate and Supplier Codes of Conduct.......................................................................................................... 64
IV. CONSUMER HEALTH & PUBLIC SAFETY ............................................................................................... 65
Phase-out or Label Products Containing Genetically Engineered Ingredients ................................................... 65
Tobacco-Related Proposals ................................................................................................................................. 65
Toxic Emissions.................................................................................................................................................... 65
Toxic Chemicals ................................................................................................................................................... 66
Nuclear Safety ..................................................................................................................................................... 66
Concentrated Area Feeding Operations (CAFOs)................................................................................................ 66
Pharmaceutical Product Reimportation ............................................................................................................. 66
Pharmaceutical Product Pricing .......................................................................................................................... 67
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
5 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
TAFT-HARTLEY ADVISORY SERVICES PROXY VOTING POLICY
STATEMENT AND GUIDELINES
This statement sets forth the proxy voting policy of ISS’ Taft-Hartley Advisory Services. The U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL) has stated that the fiduciary act of managing plan assets that are shares of corporate stock includes the voting of
proxies appurtenant to those shares of stock and that trustees may delegate this duty to an investment manager. ERISA
section 3(38) defines an investment manager as any fiduciary who is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisor Act of 1940. ISS is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisor Act of 1940.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will vote the proxies of its clients solely in the interest of their participants and
beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them. The interests of participants and beneficiaries
will not be subordinated to unrelated objectives. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall act with the care, skill, prudence,
and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with
such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims. When proxies due to TaftHartley Advisory Services’ clients have not been received, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will make reasonable efforts to
obtain missing proxies. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is not responsible for voting proxies it does not receive.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall analyze each proxy on a case-by-case basis, informed by the guidelines elaborated
below, subject to the requirement that all votes shall be cast solely in the long-term interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the plans. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services does not intend for these guidelines to be exhaustive.
Hundreds of issues appear on proxy ballots every year, and it is neither practical nor productive to fashion voting
guidelines and policies which attempt to address every eventuality. Rather, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ guidelines
are intended to cover the most significant and frequent proxy issues that arise. Issues not covered by the guidelines
shall be voted in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries of the plan based on a worker-owner view of longterm corporate value. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall revise its guidelines as events warrant and will remain in full
conformity with the AFL-CIO proxy voting policy.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall report annually to its clients on proxy votes cast on their behalf. These proxy voting
reports will demonstrate Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ compliance with its responsibilities and will facilitate clients’
monitoring of Taft-Hartley Advisory Services. A copy of this Proxy Voting Policy Statement and Guidelines is provided to
each client at the time Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is retained. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services shall provide its clients
with revised copies of this proxy voting policy statement and guidelines whenever significant revisions have been
made.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
6 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
DIRECTOR ELECTIONS
Electing directors is the single most important stock ownership right that shareholders can exercise. By electing
directors who share their views, shareholders can help to define performance standards against which management
can be held accountable. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services holds directors to a high standard when voting on their
election, qualifications, and compensation. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services evaluates directors fairly and objectively,
rewarding them for significant contributions and holding them ultimately accountable to shareholders for corporate
performance. Institutional investors should use their voting rights in uncontested elections to influence financial
performance and corporate strategies for achieving long term shareholder value.
Director accountability, independence and competence have become issues of prime importance to investors given the
failings in oversight exposed by the global financial crisis. There is also concern over the environment in the
boardrooms of certain markets, where past failures appear to be no impediment to continued or new appointments at
major companies and may not be part of the evaluation process at companies in considering whether an individual is,
or continues to be, fit for the role and best able to serve shareholders’ interests.
Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections
Votes concerning the entire board of directors and members of key board committees are examined using the
following factors:
Board Independence: Without independence from management, the board and/or its committees may be unwilling or
unable to effectively set company strategy and scrutinize performance or executive compensation.
Board Competence: Companies should seek a diverse board of directors who can add value to the board through
specific skills or expertise and who can devote sufficient time and commitment to serve effectively. While directors
should not be constrained by arbitrary limits such as age or term limits, directors who are unable to attend board and
committee meetings and/or who are overextended (i.e. serving on too many boards) raise concern on the director’s
ability to effectively serve in shareholders’ best interests.
Board Accountability: Practices that promote accountability include: transparency into a company’s governance
practices, annual board elections, and providing shareholders the ability to remove problematic directors and to vote
on takeover defenses or other charter/bylaw amendments. These practices help reduce the opportunity for
management entrenchment.
Board Responsiveness: Directors should be responsive to shareholders, particularly in regard to shareholder proposals
that receive a majority vote or management proposals that receive low shareholder support, and to tender offers
where a majority of shares are tendered. Boards should also be sufficiently responsive to high withhold/against votes
on directors. Furthermore, shareholders should expect directors to devote sufficient time and resources to oversight of
the company.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
7 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Votes on individual director nominees are always made on a
case-by-case basis. Specific director nominee withhold/against 1 votes can be triggered by one or more of the
following factors:
Board Independence
›
›
›
›
›
Lack of board and key board committee independence (fully independent audit, compensation, and nominating
committees);
Lack of a board that is at least two-thirds (67 percent) independent – i.e. where the composition of nonindependent board members is in excess of 33 percent of the entire board;
Lack of an independent board chair;
Lack of independence on key board committees (i.e. audit, compensation, and nominating committees); or
Failure to establish any key board committees (i.e. audit, compensation, or nominating).
Board Competence
›
›
Attendance of director nominees at board and committee meetings of less than 75 percent in one year without
valid reason or explanation; or
Directors serving on an excessive number of other boards which could compromise their primary duties of care
and loyalty.
Board Accountability
Vote against or withhold from the entire board of directors, (except new nominees, who should be considered on a
case-by-case basis) if:
Problematic Takeover Defenses
›
›
›
›
The board lacks accountability and oversight due to the presence of problematic governance provisions, coupled
with long-term poor corporate performance relative to peers;
If the company has a classified board and a continuing director is responsible for a problematic governance issue at
the board/committee level that would warrant a withhold/against vote, in addition to potential future
withhold/against votes on that director, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may recommend votes against or withhold
votes from any or all of the nominees up for election, with the exception of new nominees;
The company’s poison pill has a “dead-hand” or “modified dead-hand” feature; or
The board adopts a pill or makes a material adverse change to an existing pill without shareholder approval.
Restriction of Binding Shareholder Proposals:
Vote against or withhold from members of the governance committee if:
›
The company’s charter or articles of incorporation impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the
bylaws. Such restrictions include, but are not limited to: outright prohibition on the submission of binding
shareholder proposals, or share ownership requirements or time holding requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8.
Vote against on an ongoing basis.
---------------------In general, companies with a plurality vote standard use “Withhold” as the valid contrary vote option in director elections;
companies with a majority vote standard use “Against”. However, it will vary by company and the proxy must be checked to
determine the valid contrary vote option for the particular company.
1
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
8 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Problematic Compensation Practices/Pay-for-Performance Misalignment
Performance of compensation committee members and/or the entire board in relation to the approval of egregious or
excessive executive compensation (including perquisites and cash or equity awards).
Vote against or withhold votes from members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:
›
›
›
›
›
There is a misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (see Pay-for-Performance policy);
The company maintains problematic pay practices including options backdating, excessive perks and overly
generous employment contracts etc.;
The company fails to submit one-time transfers of stock options to a shareholder vote;
The company fails to fulfill the terms of a burn rate commitment they made to shareholders; or
There is evidence that management/board members are using company stock in hedging activities.
Vote case-by-case on Compensation Committee members (or, potentially, the full board) and the Management Say-onPay proposal if:
›
The company's previous say-on-pay proposal received low levels of investor support, taking into account:
› The company's response, including: a) disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors
regarding the issues that contributed to the low level of support; b) specific actions taken to address the issues
that contributed to the low level of support; c) other recent compensation actions taken by the company;
› Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;
› The company's ownership structure; and
› Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of
responsiveness.
Problematic Audit-Related Practices
Performance of audit committee members concerning the approval of excessive non-audit fees, material weaknesses,
and/or the lack of auditor ratification upon the proxy ballot;
Vote against or withhold votes from the members of the Audit Committee when:
›
›
›
›
›
Consulting (i.e. non-audit) fees paid to the auditor are excessive;
Auditor ratification is not included on the proxy ballot;
The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor;
There is evidence that the audit committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its
auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the
audit firm; or
Poor accounting practices such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section
404 disclosures, exist. Poor accounting practices may warrant voting against or withholding votes from the full
board.
Unilateral Bylaw/Charter Amendments and Problematic Capital Structures
Generally vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the entire board (except new
nominees, who should be considered case-by-case) if the board amends the company's bylaws or charter without
shareholder approval in a manner that materially diminishes shareholders' rights or that could adversely impact
shareholders, considering the following factors:
›
›
The board's rationale for adopting the bylaw/charter amendment without shareholder ratification;
Disclosure by the company of any significant engagement with shareholders regarding the amendment;
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
9 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
›
›
›
›
The level of impairment of shareholders' rights caused by the board's unilateral amendment to the bylaws/charter;
The board's track record with regard to unilateral board action on bylaw/charter amendments or other
entrenchment provisions;
The company's ownership structure;
The company's existing governance provisions;
The timing of the board's amendment to the bylaws/charter in connection with a significant business
development; and
Other factors, as deemed appropriate, that may be relevant to determine the impact of the amendment on
shareholders.
Unless the adverse amendment is reversed or submitted to a binding shareholder vote, in subsequent years vote caseby-case on director nominees. Generally vote against (except new nominees, who should be considered case-by-case)
if the directors:
›
›
›
Classified the board;
Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter; or
Eliminated shareholders' ability to amend bylaws.
For newly public companies, generally vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the
entire board (except new nominees, who should be considered case-by-case) if, prior to or in connection with the
company's public offering, the company or its board adopted bylaw or charter provisions materially adverse to
shareholder rights, or implemented a multi-class capital structure in which the classes have unequal voting rights
considering the following factors:
›
›
›
›
›
›
The level of impairment of shareholders' rights;
The disclosed rationale;
The ability to change the governance structure (e.g., limitations on shareholders’ right to amend the bylaws or
charter, or supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter);
The ability of shareholders to hold directors accountable through annual director elections, or whether the
company has a classified board structure;
Any reasonable sunset provision; and
Other relevant factors.
Unless the adverse provision and/or problematic capital structure is reversed or removed, vote case-by-case on
director nominees in subsequent years.
Governance Failures
Under extraordinary circumstances, vote against or withhold from directors individually, committee members, or the
entire board, due to:
›
›
The presence of problematic governance practices including interlocking directorships, multiple related-party
transactions, excessive risk-taking, imprudent use of corporate assets, etc.;
Inadequate CEO succession planning, including the absence of an emergency and non-emergency/orderly CEO
succession plan;
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
10 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight2, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company, failure to
replace management as appropriate, flagrant or egregious actions related to the director(s)’ service on other
boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best
interests of shareholders at any company;
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) violations or fines, and criminal investigations by
the Department of Justice (DOJ), Government Accounting Office (GAO) or any other federal agency.
Board Responsiveness
Vote against or withhold from individual directors, committee members, or the entire board of directors as appropriate
if:
›
›
›
›
At the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares
cast and the company has failed to address the underlying issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against votes;
The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of the shareholders tendered their shares;
The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received approval by a majority of the shares cast the
previous year; or
The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency
that received the majority of votes cast at the most recent shareholder meeting at which shareholders voted on
the say-on-pay frequency.
Vote case-by-case on the entire board if:
The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency that
received a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes cast at the most recent shareholder meeting at which shareholders
voted on the say-on-pay frequency, taking into account:
›
›
›
›
The board's rationale for selecting a frequency that is different from the frequency that received a plurality;
The company's ownership structure and vote results;
Whether there are compensation concerns or a history of problematic compensation practices; and
The previous year's support level on the company's say-on-pay proposal.
Proxy Contests/Proxy Access — Voting for Director Nominees in Contested Elections
Contested elections of directors frequently occur when a board candidate or “dissident slate” seeks election for the
purpose of achieving a significant change in corporate policy or control of seats on the board. Competing slates will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis with a number of considerations in mind. These include, but are not limited to, the
following: personal qualifications of each candidate; the economic impact of the policies advanced by the dissident
slate of nominees; and their expressed and demonstrated commitment to the interests of the shareholders of the
company.
---------------------Examples of failure of risk oversight include, but are not limited to: bribery; large or serial fines or sanctions from regulatory bodies;
significant adverse legal judgments or settlements; hedging of company stock; or significant pledging of company stock.
2
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
11 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Votes in a contested election of directors are evaluated on a
case-by-case basis with the following seven factors in consideration:
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry;
Management’s track record;
Background to the contested election;
Nominee qualifications and any compensatory arrangements;
Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of critique against management;
Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates);
Stock ownership positions.
In the case of candidates nominated pursuant to proxy access, vote case-by-case considering any applicable factors
listed above or additional factors which may be relevant, including those that are specific to the company, to the
nominee(s) and/or to the nature of the election (such as whether or not there are more candidates than board seats).
Independent Directors
Board independence from management is of vital importance to a company and its shareholders. Accordingly, TaftHartley Advisory Services believes votes should be cast in a manner that will encourage the independence of boards.
Independence will be evaluated based upon a number of factors, including: employment by the company or an affiliate
in an executive capacity; past or current employment by a firm that is one of the company’s paid advisors or
consultants; a personal services contract with the company; family relationships of an executive or director of the
company; interlocks with other companies on which the company’s chairman or chief executive officer is also a board
member; and service with a non-profit organization that receives significant contributions from the company.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally vote against or withhold votes from non-independent director nominees (insiders and affiliated
outsiders) where the entire board is not at least two-thirds (67 percent) independent.
› Generally vote against or withhold votes from non-independent director nominees (insiders and affiliated
outsiders) when the nominating, compensation and audit committees are not fully independent.
› Generally consider independent board members who have been on the board continually for a period longer than
10 years as affiliated outsiders.
› Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that all key board committees (i.e. audit, compensation and/or
nominating) include independent directors exclusively.
› Vote for shareholder proposals requesting that the board be comprised of a two-thirds majority of independent
directors.
Non-Independent Chairman
Two major components at the top of every public company are the running of the board and the executive
responsibility for the running of the company’s business. Many institutional investors believe there should be a clear
division of responsibilities at the head of the company that will ensure a balance of power and authority, such that no
one individual has unfettered powers of decision. When there is no clear division between the executive and board
branches of a company, poor executive and/or board actions often go unchecked to the ultimate detriment of
shareholders. Since executive compensation is so heavily correlated to the managerial power relationship in the
boardroom, the separation of the CEO and chairman positions is a critical step in curtailing excessive pay, which
ultimately can become a drain on shareholder value.
Arguments have been made that a smaller company and its shareholders can benefit from the full-time attention of a
joint chairman and CEO. This may be so in select cases, and indeed, using a case-by-case review of circumstances there
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
12 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
may be worthy exceptions. But, even in these cases, it is the general view of many institutions that a person should
only serve in the position of joint CEO and chairman on a temporary basis, and that these positions should be
separated following their provisional combination.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services strongly believes that the potential for conflicts of interest in the board’s supervisory and
oversight duties trumps any possible corollary benefits that could ensue from a dual CEO/chairman scenario. Instead of
having an ingrained quid pro quo situation whereby a company has a single leader overseeing both management and
the boardroom, Taft-Hartley fiduciaries believe that it is the board’s implicit duty to assume an impartial and objective
role in overseeing the executive team’s overall performance. Shareholder interests are placed in jeopardy if the CEO of
a company is required to report to a board that she/he also chairs.
Inherent in the chairman’s job description is the duty to assess the CEO’s performance. This objectivity is obviously
compromised when a chairman is in charge of evaluating her/his own performance or has a past or present affiliation
with management. Moreover, the unification of chairman and CEO poses a direct threat to the smooth functioning of
the entire board process since it is the ultimate responsibility of the chairman to set the agenda, facilitate discussion,
and make sure that directors are given complete access to information in order to make informed decisions.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally vote against or withhold votes from any non-independent director who serves as board chairman.
› Generally vote against or withhold votes from a CEO who is also serving in the role of chairman at the same
company.
› Generally support shareholder proposals calling for the separation of the CEO and chairman positions.
› Generally support shareholder proposals calling for a non-executive director to serve as chairman who is not a
former CEO or senior-level executive of the company.
Excessive Directorships
As new regulations mandate that directors be more engaged and vigilant in protecting shareholder interests or else risk
civil and/or criminal sanctions, board members have to devote more time and effort to their oversight duties. Recent
surveys of U.S. directors confirm a desire for limiting board memberships, to between three and five seats. In view of
the increased demands placed on corporate board members, Taft-Hartley fiduciaries believe that directors who are
overextended may be impairing their ability to serve as effective representatives of shareholders. Taft-Hartley Advisory
Services will recommend a vote against or withhold from directors serving on an excessive number of other boards,
which could compromise their primary duties of care and loyalty.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote against or withhold votes from directors serving
on an excessive number of boards. As a general rule, vote against or withhold from director nominees who are:
› CEOs of publicly-traded companies who serve on more than two public boards besides their own. NOTE: TaftHartley Advisory Services will recommend a vote against or withhold from overboarded CEO directors only at
their outside directorships 3 and not at the company in which they presently serve as CEO; or
› Non-CEO directors who serve on more than five public company boards.
Director Performance Evaluation
---------------------Although all of a CEO’s subsidiary boards will be counted as separate boards, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will not recommend a
withhold/against vote from the CEO of a parent company board or any of the controlled (>50 percent ownership) subsidiaries of that
parent, but will do so at subsidiaries that are less than 50 percent controlled and boards outside the parent/subsidiary relationships.
3
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
13 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Many institutional investors believe long-term financial performance and the appropriateness of governance practices
should be taken into consideration when determining vote recommendations with regard to directors in uncontested
elections. When evaluating whether to vote against or withhold votes from director nominees, Taft-Hartley Advisory
Services will evaluate underperforming companies that exhibit sustained poor performance as measured by total
returns to shareholders over a one- and three-year period.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services views deficient oversight mechanisms and the lack of board accountability to
shareholders especially in the context of sustained poor performance, as problematic. As part of our framework for
assessing director performance, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will also evaluate board accountability and oversight at
companies that demonstrate sustained underperformance. A governance structure that discourages director
accountability may lead to board and management entrenchment. For example, the existence of several anti-takeover
provisions* has the cumulative effect of deterring legitimate tender offers, mergers, and corporate transactions that
may have ultimately proved beneficial to shareholders. When a company maintains entrenchment devices,
shareholders of poorly performing companies are left with few effective routes to beneficial change.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will assess the company’s response to the ongoing performance issues, and consider
recent board and management changes, board independence, overall governance practices, and other factors that may
have an impact on shareholders. If a company exhibits sustained poor performance coupled with a lack of board
accountability and oversight, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may also consider the company’s five-year total
shareholder return and five-year operational metrics in our evaluation.
*Problematic provisions include but are not limited to:
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
A classified board structure;
A supermajority vote requirement;
Either a plurality vote standard in uncontested director elections or a majority vote standard with no plurality
carve-out for contested elections;
The inability for shareholders to call special meetings;
The inability for shareholders to act by written consent;
A dual-class structure; and/or
A non-shareholder approved poison pill.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote against or withhold votes from all director nominees if the
board lacks accountability and oversight, coupled with sustained poor performance relative to peers. Sustained poor
performance is measured by one- and three-year total shareholder returns in the bottom half of a company’s fourdigit GICS industry group (Russell 3000 companies only). Sustained poor performance for companies outside the
Russell 3000 universe is defined as underperforming peers or index on the basis of both one-year and three-year
total shareholder returns.
Director Diversity
Gender and ethnic diversity are important components on a company’s board. Diversity brings different perspectives to
a board that in turn leads to a more varied approach to board issues. Taft-Hartley fiduciaries generally believe that
increasing diversity in the boardroom to better reflect a company’s workforce, customers, and community enhances
shareholder value.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Support proposals asking the board to make greater efforts to search for qualified female and minority candidates
for nomination to the board of directors.
› Support endorsement of a policy of board inclusiveness.
› Support reporting to shareholders on a company’s efforts to increase diversity on their boards.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
14 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Stock Ownership Requirements
Corporate directors should own some amount of stock of the companies on which they serve as board members. Stock
ownership is a simple method to align the interests of directors with company shareholders. Nevertheless, many highly
qualified individuals such as academics and clergy who can offer valuable perspectives in boardrooms may be unable to
purchase individual shares of stock. In such a circumstance, the preferred solution is to look at the board nominees
individually and take stock ownership into consideration when voting on the merits of each candidate.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote against shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a
minimum amount of company stock in order to qualify as a director nominee or to remain on the board.
Classified Boards ~ Annual Elections
The ability to elect directors is the single most important use of the shareholder franchise, and all directors should be
accountable on an annual basis. Annually elected boards provide the best governance system for accountability to
shareholders. A classified board is a board that is divided into separate classes, with directors serving overlapping
terms. A company with a classified board usually divides the board into three classes. Under this system, only one class
of nominees comes up to shareholder vote at the AGM each year.
As a consequence of these staggered terms, shareholders only have the opportunity to vote on a single director
approximately once every three years. A classified board makes it difficult to change control of the board through a
proxy contest since it would normally take two years to gain control of a majority of board seats. Under a classified
board, the possibility of management entrenchment greatly increases. Classified boards can reduce director
accountability by shielding directors, at least for a certain period of time, from the consequences of their actions.
Continuing directors who are responsible for a problematic governance issue at the board/committee level would
avoid shareholders’ reactions to their actions because they would not be up for election in that year. Ultimately, in
these cases, the full board should be responsible for the actions of its directors.
Many in management believe that staggered boards provide continuity. Some shareholders believe that in certain
cases a staggered board can provide consistency and continuity in regard to decision-making and commitment that
may be important to the long-term financial future of the company. Nevertheless, empirical evidence strongly suggests
that staggered boards are generally not in the shareholders’ best interest. In addition to shielding directors from being
held accountable by shareholders on an annual basis, a classified board can entrench management and effectively
preclude most takeover bids or proxy contests.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against management or shareholder proposals seeking to classify the board when the issue comes up for
vote.
› Vote for management or shareholder proposals to repeal a company’s classified board structure.
› If the company has a classified board and a continuing director is responsible for a problematic governance issue at
the board/committee level that would warrant a withhold/against vote, in addition to potential future
withhold/against votes on that director, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may vote against or withhold votes from
any or all of the nominees up for election, with the exception of new nominees.
Board and Committee Size
While there is no hard and fast rule among institutional investors as to what may be an optimal board size, there is an
acceptable range that companies should strive to meet and not exceed. A board that is too large may function
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
15 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
inefficiently. Conversely, a board that is too small may allow the CEO to exert disproportionate influence or may stretch
the time requirements of individual directors too thin.
Proposals seeking to set board size will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Given that the preponderance of boards
in the U.S. range between five and fifteen directors, many institutional investors believe this benchmark is a useful
standard for evaluating such proposals.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally vote against any proposal seeking to amend the company’s board size to fewer than five seats.
› Generally vote against any proposal seeking to amend the company’s board size to more than fifteen seats;
› Evaluate board size on a case-by-case basis and consider withhold or against votes or other action at companies
that have fewer than five directors and more than 15 directors on their board.
Limit Term of Office
Those who support term limits argue that this requirement would bring new ideas and approaches on to a board.
While term of office limitations can rid the board of non-performing directors over time, it can also unfairly force
experienced and effective directors off the board. When evaluating shareholder proposals on director term limits,
consider whether the company’s performance has been poor and whether problematic or entrenching governance
provisions are in place at the company. Additionally, consider board independence, including whether the board chair
is independent.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals to limit the tenure
of outside directors.
Cumulative Voting
Most corporations provide that shareholders are entitled to cast one vote for each share owned. Under a cumulative
voting scheme, the shareholder is permitted to have one vote per share for each director to be elected. Shareholders
are permitted to apportion those votes in any manner they wish among the director candidates. Thus, under a
cumulative voting scheme shareholders have the opportunity to elect a minority representative to a board by
cumulating their votes, thereby ensuring minority representation for all sizes of shareholders.
For example, if there is a company with a ten-member board and 500 shares outstanding-the total number of votes
that may be cast is 5,000. In this case a shareholder with 51 shares (10.2 percent of the outstanding shares) would be
guaranteed one board seat because all votes may be cast for one candidate. Without cumulative voting, anyone
controlling 51 percent of shares would control the election of all ten directors.
With the advent and prevalence of majority voting for director elections, shareholders now have greater flexibility in
supporting candidates for a company’s board of directors. Cumulative voting and majority voting are two different
voting mechanisms designed to achieve two different outcomes. While cumulative voting promotes the interests of
minority shareholders by allowing them to get some representation on the board, majority voting promotes a
democratic election of directors for all shareholders and ensures board accountability in uncontested elections. Though
different in philosophic view, cumulative voting and majority voting can work together operationally, with companies
electing to use majority voting for uncontested elections and cumulative voting for contested elections to increase
accountability and ensure minority representation on the board.
In contested elections, similar to cumulative voting, proxy access allows shareholder access to the ballot without a veto
from the nominating committee, but unlike cumulative voting, it also requires majority support to elect such directors.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
16 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
At controlled companies, where majority insider control would preclude minority shareholders from having any
representation on the board, cumulative voting would allow such representation and shareholder proposals for
cumulative voting would be supported.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally vote against proposals to eliminate cumulative voting;
› Generally vote for proposals to restore or provide for cumulative voting unless:
› The company has proxy access thereby allowing shareholders to nominate directors to the company’s ballot;
and
› The company has adopted a majority vote standard, with a carve-out for plurality voting in situations where
there are more nominees than seats, and a director resignation policy to address failed elections.
› Vote for proposals for cumulative voting at controlled companies (where insider voting power exceeds 50%).
Failure to Act on Shareholder Proposals Receiving Majority Support
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote against or withhold from all director nominees at
a company that has ignored a shareholder proposal that was approved by a majority of the votes cast at the last
annual meeting.
Shareholder Rights Plan (i.e. Poison Pills)
Institutional investors view shareholder rights plans, or poison pills, as among the most onerous of takeover defenses
that may serve to entrench management and have a detrimental impact on their long-term share value. While
recognizing that boards have a fiduciary duty to use all available means to protect shareholders’ interests, as a best
governance principle, boards should seek shareholder ratification of a poison pill (or an amendment thereof) within a
reasonable period, to ensure that the features of the poison pill support the interests of shareholders and do not
merely serve as a management entrenchment device. Boards that fail to do so should be held accountable for
ultimately disregarding shareholders’ interests. In applying this principle to voting in uncontested director elections,
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services considers the term of the pill an important factor, as shorter term pills are generally less
onerous as a takeover defense when compared to longer term pills, and may in some cases provide the board with a
valuable tool to maximize shareholder value in the event of an opportunistic offer.
Companies that unilaterally adopt a long-term pill should be subject to a more frequent review –- at least once every
three years, beginning the first year following the adoption and extending until the pill has expired or been redeemed.
However, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes special consideration must be given to the combination of a poison
pill and a classified board; together they create a powerful anti-takeover and entrenchment device. Instead of only
reviewing such companies every 3 years, an annual review is more appropriate. Under a 3-year review, the same class
of directors would be receiving against or withhold recommendations, while the other 2 classes of directors would be
shielded. An annual review would hold responsible all directors of classified boards for not putting the pill to a
shareholder vote.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against or withhold votes from all nominees of the board of directors (except new nominees, who should be
considered on a case-by-case basis) at a company that has a dead-hand or modified dead-hand poison pill in place.
Vote against or withhold every year until this feature is removed;
› Vote against or withhold votes from all nominees of the board of directors (except new nominees, who should be
considered on a case-by-case basis) if the board has adopted a poison pill with a term of more than 12 months
(“long-term pill”) or renewed any existing pill, including any “short-term” pill (12 months or less) without
shareholder approval, and there is no requirement or commitment to put the pill to a binding shareholder vote.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
17 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
Review such companies with classified boards every year, and such companies with annually-elected boards at
least once every three years, and vote against or withhold votes from all nominees if the company still maintains a
non-shareholder-approved poison pill.
Vote against or withhold votes from all nominees of the board of directors (except new nominees, who should be
considered on a case-by-case basis) if the board makes a material, adverse change to an existing poison pill
without shareholder approval.
Vote case-by-case on all nominees if the board adopts a poison pill with a term of 12 months or less (“short-term
pill”) without shareholder approval, taking into account the following factors:
› The date of the pill‘s adoption relative to the date of the next meeting of shareholders- i.e. whether the
company had time to put the pill on ballot for shareholder ratification given the circumstances;
› The issuer‘s rationale;
› The issuer's governance structure and practices; and
› The issuer's track record of accountability to shareholders.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
18 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Shareholder Access to the Proxy
The current director election process as it exists leaves much to be desired. Companies currently nominate for election
only one candidate for each board seat. Shareholders who oppose a candidate have no easy way to do so unless they
are willing to undertake the considerable expense of running an independent candidate for the board. The only way for
shareholders to register dissent about a certain director candidate is to vote against or “withhold” support from that
nominee. But because directors are still largely elected by a plurality (those nominees receiving the most votes win
board seats) at a large proportion of firms in the U.S., nominees running unopposed are typically reelected despite
shareholder opposition.
Many investors view proxy access as an important shareholder right, one that is complementary to other best-practice
corporate governance features. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is generally supportive of reasonably crafted shareholder
proposals advocating for the ability of long-term shareholders to cost-effectively nominate director candidates that
represent their interests on management’s proxy card. Shareholder proposals that have the potential to result in abuse
of the proxy access right by way of facilitating hostile takeovers will generally not be supported.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to provide shareholders the
ability to nominate director candidates to be included on management’s proxy card, taking into account, among
other factors:
› Company-specific factors including:
› Responsiveness to shareholders (e.g. failing to implement majority-supported shareholder proposals);
› Board and key committee independence;
› Problematic governance and compensation practices; and
› Past accounting or financial issues such as restatements.
› Proposal-specific factors, including:
› The ownership thresholds proposed in the resolution (i.e., percentage and duration);
› The maximum proportion of directors that shareholders may nominate each year; and
› The method of determining which nominations should appear on the ballot if multiple shareholders submit
nominations.
Majority Threshold Voting Requirement for Director Elections
Shareholders have expressed strong support for precatory resolutions on majority threshold voting since 2005, with a
number of proposals receiving majority support from shareholders. Taft-Hartley fiduciaries believe shareholders should
have a greater voice in regard to the election of directors and view majority threshold voting as a viable alternative to
the current deficiencies of the plurality system in the U.S.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally support reasonably crafted shareholders proposals calling for directors to be elected with an affirmative
majority of votes cast and/or the elimination of the plurality standard for electing directors (including binding
resolutions requesting that the board amend the company’s bylaws), provided the proposal includes a carve-out
for a plurality voting standard when there are more director nominees than board seats (e.g. in contested
elections).
› Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may recommend a vote against or withhold votes from members of the board at
companies without the carve-out for plurality voting in contested elections, as the use of a majority vote standard
can act as an anti-takeover defense in contested elections. (e.g. although the dissident nominees may have
received more shares cast, as long as the combination of WITHOLD/against votes and the votes for the
management nominees keep the dissident nominees under 50%, the management nominees will win, due to the
holdover rules). This clearly contradicts the expressed will of shareholders.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
19 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
In addition to supporting proposals seeking a majority vote standard in director elections, Taft-Hartley Advisory
Services also support a post-election “director resignation policy” that addresses the situation of holdover
directors to accommodate both shareholder proposals and the need for stability and continuity of the board.
CEO Succession Planning
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for proposals seeking disclosure on a CEO succession
planning policy.
Establish an Office of the Board
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholders proposals requesting that the
board establish an Office of the Board of Directors in order to facilitate direct communication between shareholders
and non-management directors, unless the company has effectively demonstrated via public disclosure that it
already has an established structure in place.
Director and Officer Liability Protection
Management proposals typically seek shareholder approval to adopt an amendment to the company’s charter to
eliminate or limit the personal liability of directors to the company and its shareholders for monetary damages for any
breach of fiduciary duty to the fullest extent permitted by state law. In contrast, shareholder proposals seek to provide
for personal monetary liability for fiduciary breaches arising from gross negligence.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services may support these proposals when the company persuasively argues that such action is
necessary to attract and retain directors, but will likely oppose management proposals and support shareholder
proposals in order to promote greater accountability.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote against proposals to limit or eliminate entirely director and
officer liability in regard to: (i) breach of the director’s fiduciary “duty of loyalty” to shareholders; (ii) acts or
omissions not made in “good faith” or involving intentional misconduct or knowledge of violations under the law;
(iii) acts involving the unlawful purchases or redemptions of stock; (iv) payment of unlawful dividends; or (v) use of
the position as director for receipt of improper personal benefits.
Director and Officer Indemnification
Indemnification is the payment by a company of the expenses of directors who become involved in litigation as a result
of their service to a company. Proposals to indemnify a company’s directors differ from those to eliminate or reduce
their liability because with indemnification directors may still be liable for an act or omission, but the company will bear
the expense. Taft-Hartley fiduciaries may support these proposals when the company persuasively argues that such
action is necessary to attract and retain directors, but should generally oppose indemnification when it is being
proposed to insulate directors from actions that have already occurred.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against indemnification proposals that would expand individual coverage beyond ordinary legal expenses to
also cover specific acts of negligence that are more serious violations of fiduciary obligation than mere
carelessness.
› Vote against proposals that would expand the scope of indemnification to provide for mandatory indemnification
of company officials in connection with acts that previously the company was permitted to provide indemnification
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
20 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
for at the discretion of the company's board (i.e., "permissive indemnification") but that previously the company
was not required to indemnify.
Vote for only those proposals which provide expanded coverage in cases when a director’s or officer’s legal
defense was unsuccessful if: (1) the director was found to have acted in good faith and in a manner that he/she
reasonably believed was in the best interests of the company; and (2) only if the director’s legal expenses would be
covered.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
21 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
COMPENSATION
The housing market collapse and resulting credit crisis resulted in significant erosion of shareholder value,
unprecedented levels of market volatility, and a lack of confidence among financial market participants. Many TaftHartley trustees have questioned the role of executive compensation in incentivizing inappropriate or excessive risktaking behavior by executives that could threaten a corporation‘s long-term viability. Further, generous severance
packages and other payments to departing executives of failed institutions have heightened attention on the issue of
pay for performance.
Trustees of Taft-Hartley funds, which have lost significant value in their investments as a result of the financial crisis,
have little patience for “pay for failure” and continue to press for the adoption of executive compensation practices
aimed at creating and sustaining long-term shareholder value.
Companies have long argued that legally binding executive compensation obligations cannot be modified. The Capital
Purchase Program implemented under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the “bail out” program for
the U.S. financial system, set the tone for executive compensation reform and requires participating firms to accept
certain limits and requirements on executive compensation, regardless of existing contractual arrangements. A number
of firms agreed to these requirements.
Evolving disclosure requirements have opened a wider window into compensation practices and processes, giving
shareholders more opportunity and responsibility to ensure that pay is designed to create and sustain shareholder
value. Companies in the U.S. are now required to evaluate and discuss potential risks arising from misguided or
misaligned compensation programs. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires
advisory shareholder votes on executive compensation (management “Say on Pay”), an advisory vote on the frequency
of Say on Pay, as well as a shareholder advisory vote on golden parachute compensation. The advent of "Say on Pay"
votes for shareholders in the U.S. has provided a new communication mechanism and impetus for constructive
engagement between shareholders and managers/directors on pay issues.
Evaluation of Executive Pay
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes that executive pay programs should be fair, competitive, reasonable, and
appropriate, and that pay for performance should be a central tenet in executive compensation philosophy. When
evaluating executive and director pay programs and practices, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services looks for the following
best practice considerations in the design and administration of executive compensation programs:
›
›
›
›
›
Appropriate pay-for-performance alignment with emphasis on long-term shareholder value: executive pay
practices must be designed to attract, retain, and appropriately motivate the key employees who drive
shareholder value creation over the long term. Evaluating appropriate alignment of pay incentives with
shareholder value creation includes taking into consideration, among other factors, the link between pay and
performance, the mix between fixed and variable pay, performance goals, and equity-based plan costs.
Avoiding arrangements that risk “pay for failure”: this includes assessing the appropriateness of long or indefinite
contracts, excessive severance packages, and guaranteed compensation.
Independent and effective compensation committee: oversight of executive pay programs by directors with
appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and a sound process for compensation decision-making (e.g., including
access to independent expertise and advice when needed) should be promoted.
Clear, comprehensive compensation disclosures: shareholders expect companies to provide informative and
timely disclosures that enable shareholders to evaluate executive pay practices fully and fairly.
Avoiding inappropriate pay to non-executive directors: compensation to outside directors should not
compromise their independence and ability to make appropriate judgments in overseeing managers’ pay and
performance.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
22 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Examples of best pay practices include:
›
Employment contracts: Companies should enter into employment contracts under limited circumstances for a
short time period (e.g., new executive hires for a three-year contract) for limited executives. The contracts should
not have automatic renewal feature and should have a specified termination date.
›
Severance agreements: Severance provisions should not be so appealing that they become an incentive for the
executive to be terminated. The severance formula should be reasonable and not overly generous to the
executive (e.g., use a reasonable severance multiple; use pro-rated target/average historical bonus and not
maximum bonus). Failure to renew employment contract, termination under questionable events or for poor
performance should not constitute “good reason” for termination with severance payments.
›
Change-in-control payments: Change-in-control payments should be “double-triggered” – i.e. payouts should only
be made when there is a significant change in company ownership structure, and when there is a loss of
employment or substantial change in job duties associated with the change in company ownership structure.
Change-in-control provisions should exclude excise tax gross-ups and should not authorize the acceleration of
vesting of equity awards upon a change in control unless provided under a double-trigger scenario. Similarly,
change in control provisions in equity plans should be double-triggered. A change in control event should not
result in an acceleration of vesting of all unvested stock options or lapsing of vesting/performance requirements
on restricted stock/performance shares, unless there is a loss of employment or substantial change in job duties.
›
Supplemental executive retirement plans (SERPs): SERPs should not include sweeteners that can increase the
payout value significantly or even exponentially, such as additional years of service credited for pension
calculations, or inclusion of variable pay (e.g. bonuses and equity awards) into the formula. Pension formulas
should not include extraordinary annual bonuses paid close to the time of retirement and should be based on an
average, not the maximum, level of compensation earned.
›
Deferred compensation: Above-market returns or guaranteed minimum returns should not be applied on deferred
compensation.
›
Disclosure practices: The Compensation, Discussion and Analysis should be written in plain English, with as little
“legalese” as possible and formatted using section headers, bulleted lists, tables and charts where possible to ease
reader comprehension. Ultimately, the document should provide detail and rationale regarding compensation,
strategy, pay mix, goals/metrics, challenges, competition and pay for performance linkage, etc. in a narrative
fashion.
›
Responsible use of company stock: Companies should adopt policies that prohibit executives from speculating in
company’s stock or using company stock in hedging activities, such as “cashless” collars, forward sales, equity
swaps or other similar arrangements. Such behavior undermines the ultimate alignment with long-term
shareholders’ interests. In addition, the policy should prohibit or discourage the use of company stock as collateral
for margin loans, to avoid any potential sudden stock sales (required upon margin calls) that could have a negative
impact on the company's stock price.
›
Long-term focus: Executive compensation programs should be designed to support companies’ long-term strategic
goals. A short-term focus on performance does not necessarily create sustainable shareholder value. Instead, longterm goals may be sacrificed to achieve short-term expectations to the detriment of shareholder value, as
evidenced by the financial crisis.
›
Compensation programs embedding a long-term focus with respect to company goals better align with the longterm interests of shareholders. Granting stock options and restricted stock to executives that vest in five years
does not necessarily provide a long-term focus, as executives can sell off the company shares once they vest.
However, requiring senior executives to hold company stock until retirement or after retirement can encourage a
long-term focus on company performance.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
23 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Pay-For-Performance Evaluation
Stock-based pay is often the main driver for excessive executive compensation, which could be fueled by poor plan
design or administration. Therefore, it is important to closely examine any discrepancies between CEO pay and total
shareholder returns over a sustained period of time in assessing equity-based compensation. Many investors do not
consider standard stock options or time-vested restricted stock to be performance-based. If a company provides
performance-based incentives to its executives, the company should provide complete disclosure of the performance
measures and goals to allow shareholders to assess the rigor of the performance program. Complete and transparent
disclosure enables shareholders to better comprehend the company’s pay for performance linkage.
When financial or operational measures are utilized in incentive awards, the achievements related to these measures
should ultimately translate into superior shareholder returns in the long-term. The use of non-GAAP financial metrics
makes it very challenging for shareholders to ascertain the rigor of the program as shareholders often cannot tell the
type of adjustments being made and if the adjustments were made consistently.
Pay-for-performance should be a central tenet in executive compensation philosophy. In evaluating the degree of
alignment between the CEO’s pay with the company's performance over a sustained period, Taft-Hartley Advisory
Services conducts a pay-for-performance analysis.
With respect to companies in the Russell 3000 or Russell 3000E Indices4, this analysis considers the following:
1.
Peer Group5 Alignment:
›
The degree of alignment between the company's annualized TSR rank and the CEO's annualized total pay rank
within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period.
The multiple of the CEO's total pay relative to the peer group median.
›
2.
Absolute Alignment6 – the absolute alignment between the trend in CEO pay and company TSR over the prior
five fiscal years – i.e., the difference between the trend in annual pay changes and the trend in annualized TSR
during the period.
If the above analysis demonstrates significant unsatisfactory long-term pay-for-performance alignment or, in the case
of companies outside the Russell indices, misaligned pay and performance are otherwise suggested, our analysis may
include any of the following qualitative factors, as relevant to evaluating how various pay elements may work to
encourage or to undermine long-term value creation and alignment with shareholder interests:
›
›
›
›
›
The ratio of performance- to time-based equity awards;
The overall ratio of performance-based compensation;
The completeness of disclosure and rigor of performance goals;
The company's peer group benchmarking practices;
Actual results of financial/operational metrics, such as growth in revenue, profit, cash flow, etc., both absolute and
relative to peers;
---------------------The Russell 3000E Index includes approximately 4,000 of the largest U.S. equity securities.
The revised peer group is generally comprised of 14-24 companies that are selected using market cap, revenue (or assets for
certain financial firms), GICS industry group, and company's selected peers' GICS industry group, with size constraints, via a process
designed to select peers that are comparable to the subject company in terms of revenue/assets and industry, and also within a
market cap bucket that is reflective of the company's. For Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels companies, market cap is the only size
determinant.
6 Only Russell 3000 Index companies are subject to the Absolute Alignment analysis.
4
5
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
24 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
›
Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant practices (e.g.,
bi-annual awards);
Realizable pay7 compared to grant pay; and
Any other factors deemed relevant.
Problematic Compensation Practices
Poor disclosure, the absence or non-transparency of disclosure and flawed compensation plan design can lead to
excessive executive pay practices that are detrimental to shareholders.
Companies are expected to meet a minimum standard of tally sheet disclosure as to allow shareholders to readily
assess the total executive pay package, understand the actual linkage between pay and performance, and mitigate
misinformation to shareholders. The SEC has issued rules on executive and director compensation that require
expansive disclosure and a total compensation figure for each of the named executive officers. Poorly designed
executive compensation plans or those lacking in transparency can be reflective of a poorly performing compensation
committee.
Executive compensation will continue to be in the spotlight in the ensuing years, particularly when shareholders are
expected to have access to more complete information.
The focus is on executive compensation practices that contravene best practice compensation considerations,
including:
›
›
›
Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements;
Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking; and
Options Backdating.
Problematic compensation practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
Non-Performance based Compensation Elements
While not exhaustive, the following list represents certain adverse practices that are contrary to a performance-based
pay philosophy and executive pay best practices, and may lead to negative vote recommendations:
›
Egregious employment contracts:
› Contracts containing multi-year guarantees for salary increases, non-performance based bonuses, and equity
compensation;
› New CEO with overly generous new-hire package:
› Excessive “make whole” provisions without sufficient rationale;
› Any of the problematic pay practices listed in this policy;
› Abnormally large bonus payouts without justifiable performance linkage or proper disclosure:
› Includes performance metrics that are changed, canceled, or replaced during the performance period without
adequate explanation of the action and the link to performance;
› Egregious pension/SERP (supplemental executive retirement plan) payouts:
› Inclusion of additional years of service not worked that result in significant benefits provided in new
arrangements;
› Inclusion of performance-based equity or other long-term awards in the pension calculation;
---------------------7
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services research reports include realizable pay for S&P1500 companies.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
25 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Excessive Perquisites:
› Perquisites for former and/or retired executives, such as lifetime benefits, car allowances, personal use of
corporate aircraft, or other inappropriate arrangements;
› Extraordinary relocation benefits (including home buyouts);
› Excessive amounts of perquisites compensation;
Excessive severance and/or change in control provisions:
› Change in control cash payments exceeding 3 times base salary plus target/average/last paid bonus;
› Arrangements that provide for change-in-control payments without loss of job or substantial diminution of job
duties (single-triggered or modified single-triggered - where an executive may voluntarily leave for any reason
and still receive the change-in-control severance package);
› Employment or severance agreements that provide for excise tax gross-ups. Modified gross-ups would be
treated in the same manner as full gross-ups;
› Excessive payments upon an executive's termination in connection with performance failure;
› Liberal change in control definition in individual contracts or equity plans which could result in payments to
executives without an actual change in control occurring;
Tax Reimbursements/Gross-ups: income tax reimbursements on executive perquisites or other payments (e.g.,
related to personal use of corporate aircraft, executive life insurance, bonus, restricted stock vesting, secular
trusts, etc; see also excise tax gross-ups above);
Dividends or dividend equivalents paid on unvested performance shares or units;
Executives using company stock in hedging activities, such as “cashless” collars, forward sales, equity swaps, or
other similar arrangements;
Internal pay disparity: Excessive differential between CEO total pay and that of next highest-paid named executive
officer (NEO);
Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/stock appreciation rights (SARs) without prior shareholder
approval (including cash buyouts, option exchanges, and certain voluntary surrender of underwater options where
shares surrendered may subsequently be re-granted);
Options backdating;
Insufficient executive compensation disclosure by externally- managed issuers (EMIs) such that a reasonable
assessment of pay programs and practices applicable to the EMI's executives is not possible; and
Other pay practices that may be deemed problematic in a given circumstance but are not covered in the above
categories.
Incentives that may Motivate Excessive Risk-Taking
Assess company policies and disclosure related to compensation that could incentivize excessive risk-taking, for
example:
›
›
›
›
›
›
Guaranteed bonuses or other abnormally large bonus payouts without justifiable performance linkage or
appropriate disclosure;
Mega annual equity grants that provide unlimited upside with no downside risk;
A single performance metric used for short- and long-term plans;
High pay opportunities relative to industry peers;
Disproportionate supplemental pensions; or
Lucrative severance packages.
Factors that potentially mitigate the impact of risky incentives include rigorous claw-back provisions, robust stock
ownership/holding guidelines, and substantive bonus deferral/escrowing programs.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
26 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Options Backdating
Options backdating has serious implications and has resulted in financial restatements, delisting of companies, and/or
the termination of executives or directors. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will adopt a case-by-case approach to
differentiate companies that had sloppy administration vs. deliberate action or fraud, as well as those companies which
have since taken corrective action. Instances in which companies have committed fraud are considered most
egregious, and Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will look to them to adopt formal policies to ensure that such practices
will not re-occur in the future.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will consider several factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
›
›
›
›
›
Reason and motive for the options backdating issue, such as inadvertent vs. deliberate grant date changes;
Duration of options backdating;
Size of restatement due to options backdating;
Corrective actions taken by the board or compensation committee, such as canceling or repricing backdated
options, or recoupment of option gains on backdated grants; and
Adoption of a grant policy that prohibits backdating, and creation of a fixed grant schedule or window period for
equity grants going forward.
Compensation Committee Communications and Responsiveness
Consider the following factors when evaluating ballot items related to executive pay on the board's responsiveness to
investor input and engagement on compensation issues:
›
›
Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics; or
Failure to adequately respond to the company's previous say-on-pay proposal that received a low level of
shareholder support, taking into account:
› The company's response, including:
› Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors regarding the issues that contributed
to the low level of support;
› Specific actions taken to address the issues that contributed to the low level of support;
› Other recent compensation actions taken by the company;
› Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated;
› The company's ownership structure; and
› Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of
responsiveness.
Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation – Management Say-on-Pay Proposals
The Dodd-Frank Act Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 mandates advisory votes on executive
compensation (aka management "say on pay" or MSOP) for a proxy or consent or authorization for an annual or other
meeting of the shareholders that includes required SEC compensation disclosures. This non-binding shareholder vote
on compensation must be included in a proxy or consent or authorization at least once every 3 years.
In general, the management say on pay (MSOP) ballot item is the primary focus of voting on executive pay practices –
dissatisfaction with compensation practices can be expressed by voting against MSOP rather than voting against or
withhold from the compensation committee. However, if there is no MSOP on the ballot, then the negative vote will
apply to members of the compensation committee. In addition, in egregious cases, or if the board fails to respond to
concerns raised by a prior MSOP proposal, then Taft-Hartley fiduciaries should vote against or withhold votes from
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
27 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
compensation committee members (or, if the full board is deemed accountable, all directors). If the negative factors
involve equity-based compensation, then a vote against an equity-based plan proposal presented for shareholder
approval may be warranted.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Evaluate executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation on a case-by-case
basis.
›
Vote against management say on pay (MSOP) proposals if:
› There is a misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance);
› The company maintains problematic pay practices;
› The board exhibits poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders; or
› The board has failed to demonstrate good stewardship of investors’ interests regarding executive
compensation practices.
›
Vote against or withhold from the members of the Compensation Committee and potentially the full board if:
› There is no MSOP on the ballot, and an against vote on an MSOP is warranted due to pay for performance
misalignment, problematic pay practices, or the lack of adequate responsiveness on compensation issues
raised previously, or a combination thereof;
› The board fails to respond adequately to a previous MSOP proposal that received low levels of shareholder
support;
› The company has practiced or approved problematic pay practices, including option repricing or option
backdating; or
› The situation is egregious.
›
Vote against an equity plan on the ballot if:
› A pay for performance misalignment exists, and a significant portion of the CEO’s misaligned pay is attributed
to non-performance-based equity awards, taking into consideration:
› Magnitude of pay misalignment;
› Contribution of non-performance-based equity grants to overall pay; and
› The proportion of equity awards granted in the last three fiscal years concentrated at the named
executive officer (NEO) level.
Frequency of Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation – Management Say on Pay
The Dodd-Frank Act, in addition to requiring advisory votes on compensation (aka management "say on pay" or MSOP),
requires that each proxy for the first annual or other meeting of the shareholders (that includes required SEC
compensation disclosures) occurring after Jan. 21, 2011, include an advisory voting item to determine whether, going
forward, the "say on pay" vote by shareholders to approve compensation should occur every one, two, or three years.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will recommend a vote for annual advisory votes on compensation. The MSOP is at its
essence a communication vehicle, and communication is most useful when it is received in a consistent and timely
manner. Support for an annual MSOP vote is merited for many of the same reasons Taft-Hartley Advisory Services
supports annual director elections rather than a classified board structure: because this provides the highest level of
accountability and direct communication by enabling the MSOP vote to correspond to the majority of the information
presented in the accompanying proxy statement for the applicable shareholders' meeting. Having MSOP votes every
two or three years, covering all actions occurring between the votes, would make it difficult to create the meaningful
and coherent communication that the votes are intended to provide. Under triennial elections, for example, a
company would not know whether the shareholder vote references the compensation year being discussed or a
previous year, making it more difficult to understand the implications of the vote.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
28 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for annual advisory votes on compensation, which provide
the most consistent and clear communication channel for shareholder concerns about companies' executive pay
programs.
Advisory Vote on Golden Parachutes in an Acquisition, Merger, Consolidation, or Proposed
Sale
This is a proxy item regarding specific advisory votes on "golden parachute" arrangements for Named Executive
Officers (NEOs) that is required under The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Taft-Hartley
Advisory Services places particular emphasis on severance packages that provide inappropriate windfalls and cover
certain executive tax liabilities.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to approve the company's
golden parachute compensation, consistent with Taft-Hartley Advisory Services' policies on problematic pay
practices related to severance packages. Features that may lead to a vote against include:
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Agreements that include excise tax gross-up provisions;
Single- or modified-single-trigger cash severance;
Single trigger acceleration of unvested equity, including acceleration of performance-based equity despite the
failure to achieve performance measures;
Single-trigger vesting of equity based on a definition of change in control that requires only shareholder approval
of the transaction (rather than consummation);
Potentially excessive severance payments;
Recent amendments or actions that may make packages so attractive as to influence merger agreements that may
not be in the best interests of shareholders; and
The company's assertion that a proposed transaction is conditioned on shareholder approval of the golden
parachute advisory vote. Such a construction is problematic from a corporate governance perspective.
In cases where the golden parachute vote is incorporated into a company's separate advisory vote on compensation
("management "say on pay"), Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will evaluate the say on pay proposal in accordance with
these guidelines, which may give higher weight to that component of the overall evaluation.
Equity Pay Plans
The theory that stock awards including stock options are beneficial to shareholders because they motivate
management and align the interests of investors with those of executives is no longer held sacrosanct. Indeed, a
number of academic studies have found that there is limited correlation between executive stock ownership and
company performance. Misused stock options can give executives an incentive to inflate their company’s earnings, take
excessive risks, and make irresponsibly optimistic forecasts in order to keep stock prices high and their paychecks
gargantuan.
Therefore, it is vital for shareholders to fully analyze all equity plans that appear on ballot.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: In general, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services evaluates executive
and director compensation plans on a case-by-case basis. When evaluating equity-based compensation items on
ballot, the following elements will be considered:
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
29 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Dilution: Vote against plans in which the potential voting power dilution (VPD) of all shares outstanding exceeds
ten percent.
Full Market Value: Awards must be granted at 100 percent of fair market value on the date of grant. However, in
instances when a plan is open to broad-based employee participation and excludes the five most highly
compensated employees, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services accept a 15 percent discount.
Burn Rate: Vote against plans where the company’s three year burn rate exceeds the greater of: (1) the mean (μ)
plus one standard deviation (σ) of the company's GICS group segmented by Russell 3000 index and non-Russell
3000 index; and (2) two percent of weighted common shares outstanding.
Liberal Definition of Change-in-Control: Vote against equity plans if the plan provides for the accelerated vesting of
equity awards even though an actual change in control may not occur. Examples of such a definition could include,
but are not limited to, announcement or commencement of a tender offer, provisions for acceleration upon a
“potential” takeover, shareholder approval of a merger or other transactions, or similar language.
Problematic Pay Practices: Vote against equity plans if the plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices (e.g. if the
plan allows for change-in-control payouts that are single triggered).
Executive Concentration Ratio: Vote against plans where the annual grant rate to the top five executives (“named
officers”) exceeds one percent of shares outstanding.
Pay-For-Performance: Vote against plans where there is a misalignment between CEO pay and the company’s
performance, or if performance criteria are not disclosed.
Evergreen Features: Vote against plans that reserve a specified percentage of outstanding shares for award each
year instead of having a termination date.
Repricing: Vote against plans if the company’s policy permits repricing of “underwater” options or if the company
has a history of repricing past options.
Loans: Vote against the plan if the plan administrator may provide loans to officers to assist in exercising the
awards.
Stock Option Plans
Compensation to executive and other senior level employees should be strongly correlated to sustained performance.
Stock options, restricted stock and other forms of non-cash compensation should be performance-based with an eye
toward improving long-term corporate value. Well-designed stock option plans can align the interests of executives and
shareholders by providing that executives benefit when stock prices rise so that the employees of the company, along
with shareholders, prosper together. Likewise, option plans should not allow for the benefits of share price gains
without the risk of share price declines. Poorly designed stock option plans can encourage excessive risk-taking
behavior and incentivize executives to pursue corporate strategies that promote short-term stock price to the ultimate
detriment of long-term shareholder value.
Many plans sponsored by management provide goals so easily attained that executives can realize massive rewards
even though shareholder value is not created. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports option plans when they provide
legitimately challenging performance targets that serve to truly motivate executives in the pursuit of sustained superior
performance. Moreover, equity pay plans should be designed in a fashion that ensures executive compensation is
veritably performance driven and “at risk” such that executives are penalized (by either reducing or withholding
compensation) for failure to meet pre-determined performance hurdles. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose
those plans that offer unreasonable benefits to executives that are not generally available to other shareholders or
employees.
Voting Power Dilution (VPD) Calculation
Voting power dilution, or VPD, measures the amount of voting power represented by the number of shares reserved
over the life of the plan. Industry norm dictates that ten percent dilution over the life of a ten-year plan is reasonable
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
30 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
for most mature companies. Restricted stock plans or stand-alone stock bonus plans that are not coupled with stock
option plans can be held to a lower dilution cap.
Voting power dilution may be calculated using the following formula:
A:
B:
C:
D:
Shares reserved for this amendment or plan
Shares available under this plan and/or continuing plans prior to proposed amendment
Shares granted but unexercised under this plan and/or continuing plans
All outstanding shares plus any convertible equity, outstanding warrants, or debt
The formula can be applied as follows:
A+B+C
A+B+C+D
Fair Market Value, Dilution and Repricing
Consideration will be made as to whether the proposed plan is being offered at fair market value or at a discount;
whether the plan excessively dilutes the earnings per share of the outstanding shares; and whether the plan gives
management the ability to replace or reprice “underwater” options. Repricing is an amendment to a previously granted
stock option contract that reduces the option exercise price. Options are “underwater” when their current price is
below the current option contract price. Options can also be repriced through cancellations and re-grants. The typical
new grant would have a ten-year term, new vesting restrictions, and a lower exercise price reflecting the current lower
market price.
Burn Rate
The annual burn rate is a measure of dilution that illustrates how rapidly a company is deploying shares reserved for
equity compensation plans. The burn or run rate is calculated by dividing the number of shares pursuant to awards
granted in a given year by the number of shares outstanding. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services benchmarks a company’s
burn rate against three-year industry and primary index burn rates, and generally opposes plans whose average threeyear burn rates exceed the greater of: (1) the mean plus one standard deviation of the company's GICS group
segmented by Russell 3000 index and non-Russell 3000 index; or (2) two percent of weighted common shares
outstanding. Additionally, year-over-year burn-rate cap changes will be limited to a maximum of two percentage points
(plus or minus) the prior year's burn-rate cap. If a company fails to fulfill a burn rate commitment to shareholders, vote
against or withhold from the compensation committee.
Executive Concentration Ratio
In examining stock option awards, restricted stock and other forms of long-term incentives, it is important to consider
internal pay equity; that is, the concentration and distribution of equity awards to a company’s top five executives
(“named officers”) as a percentage of overall grants. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will consider voting against equity
compensation plans whose annual grant rate to top executives exceeds one percent of shares outstanding.
Evergreen Provisions
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will oppose plans that reserve a specified percentage of outstanding shares for award
each year (evergreen plans) instead of having a termination date. Such plans provide for an automatic increase in the
shares available for grant with or without limits on an annual basis. Because they represent a transfer of shareholder
value and have a dilutive impact on a regular basis, evergreen plans are expensive to shareholders. Evergreen features
also minimize the frequency that companies seek shareholder approval in increasing the number of shares available
under the plan.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
31 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Option Exchange Programs/Repricing Options
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals to put option repricings to a
shareholder vote.
Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking approval to exchange/reprice options taking into
consideration the following factors:
› Historic trading patterns: the stock price should not be so volatile that the options are likely to be back “in-themoney” over the near term;
› Rationale for the re-pricing: was the stock price decline beyond management's control?
› Option vesting: does the new option vest immediately or is there a black-out period?
› Term of the option: the term should remain the same as that of the replaced option;
› Exercise price: should be set at fair market or a premium to market;
› Participants: the plan should be broad-based and executive officers and directors should be excluded;
› Is this a value-for-value exchange?
› Are surrendered stock options added back to the plan reserve?
If the surrendered options are added back to the equity plans for re-issuance, then Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will
also take into consideration the impact on the company’s equity plans and its three-year average burn rate.
In addition to the above considerations, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will evaluate the intent, rationale, and timing of
the repricing proposal. The proposal should clearly articulate why the board is choosing to conduct an exchange
program at this point in time. Repricing underwater options after a recent precipitous drop in the company’s stock
price demonstrates poor timing. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services does not view market deterioration, in and of itself, as
an acceptable reason for companies to reprice stock options and/or reset goals under performance plans. Repricing
after a recent decline in stock price triggers additional scrutiny and may warrant a vote against the proposal. At a
minimum, the decline should not have happened within the past year. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services also considers the
terms of the surrendered options, such as the grant date, exercise price and vesting schedule. Grant dates of
surrendered options should be far enough back (two to three years) so as not to suggest that repricings are being done
to take advantage of short-term downward price movements. Similarly, the exercise price of surrendered options
should be above the 52-week high for the stock price.
Restricted Stock
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports the use of performance-vesting restricted stock as long as the absolute amount
of restricted stock being granted is a reasonable proportion of an executive’s overall compensation. The best way to
align the interests of executives with shareholders is through direct stock holdings, coupled with at-risk variable
compensation that is tied to explicit and challenging performance benchmarks. Performance-vesting restricted stock
both adds to executives direct share holdings and incorporates at-risk features.
To reward performance and not job tenure, restricted stock vesting requirements should be performance-based rather
than time lapsing. Such plans should explicitly define the performance criteria for awards to senior executives and may
include a variety of corporate performance measures in addition to the use of stock price targets. In addition,
executives should be required to hold their vested restricted stock as long as they remain employees of the company.
Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) - Qualified Plans
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on qualified employee stock purchase plans.
Vote for plans if:
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
32 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
›
Purchase price is at least 85 percent of fair market value;
Offering period is 27 months or less; and
The number of shares allocated to the plan is five percent or less of the outstanding shares.
Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) – Non-Qualified Plans
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on nonqualified employee stock purchase
plans. Vote for plans with:
›
›
›
›
Broad-based participation (i.e. all employees with the exclusion of individuals with 5 percent or more of beneficial
ownership of the company);
Limits on employee contribution (a fixed dollar amount or a percentage of base salary);
Company matching contribution up to 25 percent of employee’s contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20
percent from market value; and
No discount on the stock price on the date of purchase since there is a company matching contribution.
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)
An Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) is an employee benefit plan that makes the employees of a company also
owners of stock in that company. Recent academic research of the performance of ESOPs in closely held companies
found that ESOPs appear to increase overall sales, employment, and sales per employee over what would have been
expected absent an ESOP. Studies have also found that companies with an ESOP are also more likely to still be in
business several years later, and are more likely to have other retirement oriented benefit plans than comparable nonESOP companies.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for proposals that request shareholder approval in order to
implement an ESOP or to increase authorized shares for existing ESOPs except in cases when the number of shares
allocated to the ESOP is deemed excessive (i.e. generally greater than five percent of outstanding shares).
OBRA-Related Compensation Proposals
Cash bonus plans can be an important part of an executive’s overall pay package, along with stock-based plans tied to
long-term total shareholder returns. Section 162(m) of the IRS Code Section limits the deductibility of compensation in
excess of $1 million to a named executive officer unless certain prescribed actions are taken including shareholder
approval and the establishment of performance goals.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally vote for proposals to approve or amend executive incentive bonus plans if the proposal:
› Is only to include administrative features;
› Places a cap on the annual grants any one participant may receive to comply with the provisions of Section
162(m);
› Adds performance goals to existing compensation plans to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m)
unless they are clearly inappropriate; or
› Covers cash or cash and stock bonus plans that are submitted to shareholders for the purpose of exempting
compensation from taxes under the provisions of Section 162(m) if no increase in shares is requested.
›
Vote against such proposals if:
› The plan provides for awards to individual participants in excess of $2 million a year;
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
33 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
›
The compensation committee does not fully consist of independent outsiders as defined by Taft-Hartley
Advisory Services’ definition of director independence; or
The plan contains excessive problematic provisions including lack of rigorous performance measures.
Vote case-by-case on such proposals with respect to equity incentive plans if:
› In addition to seeking 162(m) tax treatment, the amendment may cause additional voting power dilution to
shareholders (e.g., by requesting additional shares, extending the option term, or expanding the pool of plan
participants);
› A company is presenting the plan to shareholders for Section 162(m) favorable tax treatment for the first time
after the company's initial public offering (IPO). Perform a full equity plan analysis, including consideration of
potential voting power dilution, burn rate (if applicable), repricing, and liberal change in control. Other factors
such as pay-for-performance or problematic pay practices as related to Management Say-on-Pay may be
considered if appropriate.
Golden and Tin Parachutes
Golden parachutes are designed to protect the employees of a corporation in the event of a change-in-control. Under
most golden parachute agreements, senior level management employees receive a lump sum payout triggered by a
change-in-control at usually two to three times their current base salary. The SEC requires disclosure of all golden
parachute arrangements in the proxy statement.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote case-by-case on management proposals to ratify or cancel golden parachutes taking into consideration the
following factors:
› Whether the triggering mechanism is beyond the control of management;
› Whether the payout amount is based on an excessive severance multiple; and
› Whether the change-in-control payments are double-triggered, i.e., (1) after a change in control has taken
place, and (2) termination of the executive as a result of the change in control. Change in control is defined as
a change in the company ownership structure .
›
Vote for shareholder proposals to all have golden parachute agreements submitted for shareholder ratification.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
34 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Director Compensation
Shareholder Ratification of Director Pay Programs
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on management proposals seeking ratification
of non-employee director compensation, based on the following factors:
›
›
If the equity plan under which non-employee director grants are made is on the ballot, whether or not it warrants
support; and
An assessment of the following qualitative factors:
› The relative magnitude of director compensation as compared to companies of a similar profile;
› The presence of problematic pay practices relating to director compensation;
› Director stock ownership guidelines and holding requirements;
› Equity award vesting schedules;
› The balance of cash vs. equity compensation;
› Meaningful limits on director compensation;
› The availability of retirement benefits or perquisites; and
› The quality of disclosure surrounding director compensation.
Shareholder Proposals on Compensation
Disclosure of Executive and Director Pay
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals that seek additional
disclosure of executive and director pay information, including the preparation of a formal report on executive
compensation practices and policies.
Limit Executive and Director Pay
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally vote for shareholder proposals that seek to eliminate outside directors’ retirement benefits.
› Vote case-by-case on all other shareholder proposals that seek to limit executive and director pay. This includes
shareholder proposals that seek to link executive compensation to customer, employee, or stakeholder
satisfaction.
Executive Perks and Retirement/Death Benefits
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports enhanced disclosure and shareholder oversight of executive benefits and other
in-kind retirement perquisites. For example, compensation devices like executive pensions (SERPs), deferred
compensation plans, below-market-rate loans or guaranteed post-retirement consulting fees can amount to significant
liabilities to shareholders and it is often difficult for investors to find adequate disclosure of their full terms. TaftHartley Advisory Services opposes any perquisite or benefit to executives that exceeds what is generally offered to
other company employees. From a shareholder prospective, the cost of these executive entitlements would be better
allocated to performance-based forms of executive compensation during their term in office.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
35 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in SERP agreements
to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond
what is offered under employee-wide plans.
› Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling companies to adopt a policy of discontinuing or obtaining
shareholder approval for any future agreements and corporate policies that could oblige the company to make
payments or awards following the death of a senior executive. This could come, for example, in the form of
unearned salary or bonuses, accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites
and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation. However, this would not apply to any benefit
programs or equity plan proposals that the broad-based employee population is eligible.
Executive Holding Periods
Senior level executives should be required to hold a substantial portion of their equity compensation awards, including
shares received from option exercises (e.g. 75% of their after-tax stock option proceeds), while they are employed at a
company or even into retirement. Equity compensation awards are intended to align management interests with those
of shareholders, and allowing executives to sell these shares while they are employees of the company undermines this
purpose. Given the large size of a typical annual equity compensation award, holding requirements that are based on a
multiple of cash compensation may be inadequate.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals asking companies to
adopt policies requiring senior executive officers to retain a portion of the net shares acquired through
compensation plans while employed or following the termination of their employment.
Pay for Superior Performance
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals that request the board
to establish a pay-for-superior performance standard in the company's executive compensation programs for senior
executives.
Performance-Based Options
Stock options are intended to align the interests of management with those of shareholders. However, stock option
grants without performance-based elements can excessively compensate executives for stock increases due solely to a
general stock market rise, rather than improved or superior company stock performance. When option grants reach
the hundreds of thousands, a relatively small increase in the share price may permit executives to reap millions of
dollars without providing material benefits to shareholders.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services advocates for performance-based awards – such as premium-priced or indexed – which
encourage executives to outperform peers, certain indices, or the broader market rather than being rewarded for any
minimal rise in the share price, which can occur if there are not empirical performance measures incorporated into the
structure of the options. Additionally, it should be noted that performance-accelerated vesting and premium priced
options allow fixed plan accounting, whereas performance-vested and indexed options entail certain expensing
requirements.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals that seek to provide for
performance-based options such as indexed and/or premium priced options.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
36 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Tax Gross-up Proposals
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals calling for companies to adopt a
policy of not providing tax gross-up payments to executives, except in situations where gross-ups are provided
pursuant to a plan, policy, or arrangement applicable to management employees of the company, such as a
relocation or expatriate tax equalization policy.
Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay) Shareholder Proposals
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally, vote for shareholder proposals that call for nonbinding shareholder ratification of the compensation of the Named Executive Officers and the accompanying
narrative disclosure of material factors provided to understand the Summary Compensation Table.
Compensation Consultants - Disclosure of Board or Company’s Utilization
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking disclosure
regarding the Company, Board, or Compensation Committee’s use of compensation consultants, such as company
name, business relationship(s) and fees paid.
Adopt Anti-Hedging/Pledging/Speculative Investments Policy
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals seeking a policy that prohibits
named executive officers from engaging in derivative or speculative transactions involving company stock, including
hedging, holding stock in a margin account, or pledging stock as collateral for a loan.
Bonus Banking/Bonus Banking “Plus”
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for on proposals seeking deferral of a portion of
annual bonus pay, with ultimate payout linked to sustained results for the performance metrics on which the bonus
was earned (whether for the named executive officers or a wider group of employees).
Termination of Employment Prior to Severance Payment and Eliminating Accelerated Vesting
of Unvested Equity
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking a policy
requiring termination of employment prior to severance payment, and eliminating accelerated vesting of unvested
equity.
Recoup Bonuses
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals to recoup unearned incentive
bonuses or other incentive payments made to senior executives if it is later determined that the incentive
compensation was based upon figures that later turn out to have been in error.
Link Compensation to Non-Financial Factors
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally vote for shareholder proposals seeking disclosure on linking executive pay to non-financial factors.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
37 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
Evaluate shareholder proposals calling for linkage of executive pay to non-financial factors, such as corporate
downsizing, customer/employee satisfaction, community involvement, human rights, social and environmental
goals and performance, and predatory lending on a case-by-case basis.
Pension Plan Income Accounting
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals to exclude pension plan
income in the calculation of earnings used in determining executive bonuses/compensation.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
38 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
AUDITORS
Auditors play an integral role in certifying the integrity and reliability of corporate financial statements on which
investors rely to gauge the financial well-being of a company and the viability of an investment. The well-documented
auditor-facilitated bankruptcies and scandals at several large public companies in recent years underscore the
catastrophic consequences that investors can suffer when the audit process breaks down.
Auditor Independence
The wave of accounting scandals over the past decade illuminates the need to ensure auditor independence in the face
of consulting services to audit clients. The ratio of non-audit services to total revenues at the large accounting firms
grew significantly leading up to the accounting scandals. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services believes the ratio of non-audit
fees should make up no more than one-quarter of all fees paid to the auditor so as to properly discourage even the
appearance of any undue influence upon an auditor’s objectivity.
Under SEC rules, disclosed categories of professional fees paid for audit and non-audit services are as follows: (1) Audit
Fees, (2) Audit-Related Fees, (3) Tax Fees, and (4) All Other Fees. Under the reporting requirements, companies are
required to describe – in qualitative terms – the types of services provided under the three categories other than Audit
Fees. The following fee categories are defined as: A) tax compliance or preparation fees are excluded from our
calculations of non-audit fees; and B) fees for consulting services for tax-avoidance strategies and tax shelters will be
included in “other fees” and will be considered non-audit fees if the proxy disclosure does not indicate the nature of
the tax services. In circumstances where "Other" fees include fees related to significant one-time capital structure
events: initial public offerings, bankruptcy emergence, and spin-offs; and the company makes public disclosure of the
amount and nature of those fees which are an exception to the standard "non-audit fee" category, then such fees may
be excluded from the non-audit fees considered in determining the ratio of non-audit to audit/audit-related fees/tax
compliance and preparation for purposes of determining whether non-audit fees are excessive.
As auditors are the backbone upon which a company’s financial health is measured, auditor independence is absolutely
essential for rendering objective opinions upon which investors then rely. When an auditor is paid excessive consulting
fees in addition to fees paid for auditing, the company-auditor relationship is left open to conflicts of interest.
Auditor Ratification
The ratification of auditors is an important component of good governance. In light of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and increased shareholder scrutiny, some companies are opting to take auditor ratification off the ballot. Neglecting to
include the ratification of auditors on the proxy takes away the fundamental shareholder right to ratify the company’s
choice of auditor. Whereas shareholder ratification of auditors was once considered routine by many shareowners,
accounting scandals have caused shareholders to be more vigilant about the integrity of the auditors certifying their
companies’ financial statements. It is now viewed as best practice for companies to place the item on ballot.
Although U.S. companies are not legally required to allow shareholders to ratify their appointment of independent
auditors, submission of the audit firm for approval at the annual meeting on an annual basis gives shareholders the
means to weigh in on their satisfaction (or lack thereof) of the auditor’s independent execution of their duties. TaftHartley Advisory Services believes mandatory auditor ratification is in line with sound and transparent corporate
governance and remains an important mechanism to ensure the integrity of the auditor’s work. In the absence of
legislation mandating shareholder ratification of auditors, the failure by a company to present its selection of auditors
for shareholder ratification should be discouraged as it undermines good governance and disenfranchises
shareholders.
Proposals to ratify auditors is examined for potential conflicts of interest, with particular attention to the fees paid to
the auditor, as well as whether the ratification of auditors has been put up for shareholder vote.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
39 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for proposals to ratify auditors when the amount of audit fees is equal to or greater than three times (75
percent) the amount paid for consulting, unless: i) An auditor has a financial interest in or association with the
company, and is therefore not independent; or ii) There is reason to believe that the independent auditor has
rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position.
› Vote against proposals to ratify auditors when the amount of non-audit consulting fees exceeds a quarter of all
fees paid to the auditor.
› Generally support shareholder proposals seeking to limit companies from buying consulting services from their
auditor.
Auditor Rotation
Long-term relationships between auditors and their clients can impede auditor independence, objectivity and
professional skepticism. Such long-standing relationships foster an undesirable coziness between audit firms and their
clients, which can cause the auditors to lose their independence and become less questioning especially where
lucrative contracts for the provision of non-audit consulting services are involved. Mandatory auditor rotation is a
widely supported safeguard against improper audits and is viewed by many as an effective mechanism for mitigating
the potential risks borne by long-term auditor-client relationships.
Proponents of compulsory audit firm rotation contend that rotation policies promote objectivity and independence
among auditors and minimize the scope of vested interests developing in the audit. Opponents of audit firm rotation
argue that regular re-tendering is a costly practice, likely to reduce audit quality and increase the risk of audit failure in
the early years due to the time required to gain cumulative knowledge of an often complex and geographically diverse
business. A solution around this apparent negative effect of mandatory rotation is to keep a longer rotation period.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services recommends that companies not maintain the same audit firm in excess of seven years,
and will consider voting against auditors if their tenure at a company exceeds seven years. A revolving seven-year
rotation period allows the auditor to develop cumulative knowledge of a company’s business and the effect of changes
in the business along with the corresponding changes in its risks, thereby enhancing the quality of the audit and
trammeling potential loss of auditor objectivity and independence. Many institutional investors argue that the
increased costs associated with compulsory auditor rotation are a lesser evil vis-à-vis the larger evil of the costs to
shareholders when the objectionable coziness between clients and long-standing auditors leads to gross erosion of
shareholder value.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support shareholder proposals to ensure auditor
independence through measures such as mandatory auditor rotation (no less than every seven years).
Auditor Indemnification and Limitation of Liability
Indemnification clauses allow auditors to avoid liability for potential damages, including punitive damages. Eliminating
concerns about being sued for carelessness could lead to; 1) potential impairment of external auditor independence
and impartiality by contractual clauses limiting their liability; and 2) a decrease in the quality and reliability of the audit
given the lack of consequence for an inadequate audit.
Given the substantial settlements against auditors in recent years for poor audit practices and the cost of such
insurance to the company and its shareholders, there are legitimate concerns over the broader use of indemnification
clauses. Such agreements may weaken the objectivity, impartiality and performance of audit firms. Taft-Hartley
Advisory Services believes it is important for shareholders to understand the full risks and implications of these
agreements and determine what impact they could have on shareholder value. At the present time, however, due to
poor disclosure in this area, it is difficult to identify the existence and extent of limited liability provisions and auditor
agreements, and investors lack the information needed to make informed decisions regarding these agreements.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
40 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Without uniform disclosure, it is difficult to consistently apply policy and make informed vote recommendations. As
such, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services reviews the use of indemnification clauses and limited liability provisions in auditor
agreements on a case-by-case basis, when disclosure is present.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote against or withhold from Audit Committee members if
there is persuasive evidence that the audit committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement
with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against
the audit firm.
Disclosures Under Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that companies document and assess the effectiveness of their internal
financial controls. Beginning in 2005, most public companies must obtain annual attestation of the effectiveness of
their internal controls over financial reporting from their outside auditors. Companies with significant material
weaknesses identified in the Section 404 disclosures potentially have ineffective internal financial reporting controls.
This may lead to inaccurate financial statements, which hampers shareholders’ ability to make informed investment
decisions, and may lead to destruction of public confidence and shareholder value. The Audit Committee is ultimately
responsible for the integrity and reliability of the company’s financial information and its system of internal controls.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against or withhold votes from Audit Committee members under certain circumstances when a material
weakness rises to a level of serious concern, if there are chronic internal control issues, or if there is an absence of
established effective control mechanisms.
› Vote against management proposals to ratify auditors if there is reason to believe that the independent auditor
has rendered an opinion which is neither accurate nor indicative of the company’s financial position.
Adverse Opinions
An Adverse Opinion on the company’s financial statements is issued when the auditor determines that the financial
statements are materially misstated and, when considered as a whole, do not conform to GAAP. It essentially states
that the information contained is materially incorrect, unreliable, and inaccurate in order to assess the company’s
financial position and results of operations.
Adverse opinions on companies’ financial statements are generally very rare because they essentially state that a
significant portion of the financial statements are unreliable and the auditor had no choice but to issue an adverse
opinion after a long process of seeking resolution with the company subjected to the audit.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote against or withhold votes from Audit Committee members
if the company receives an Adverse Opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditors.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
41 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
TAKEOVER DEFENSES
Poison Pills
Shareholder rights plans, typically known as poison pills, take the form of rights or warrants issued to shareholders and
are triggered when a potential acquiring stockholder reaches a certain threshold of ownership. When triggered, poison
pills generally allow shareholders to purchase shares from, or sell shares back to, the target company (“flip-in pill”)
and/or the potential acquirer (“flip-out pill”) at a price far out of line with fair market value.
Depending on the type of pill, the triggering event can either transfer wealth from the target company or dilute the
equity holdings of current shareholders. Poison pills insulate management from the threat of a change in control and
provide the target board with veto power over takeover bids. Because poison pills greatly alter the balance of power
between shareholders and management, shareholders should be allowed to make their own evaluation of such plans.
In evaluating management proposals on poison pills, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services considers the company’s rationale
for adopting the pill and its existing governance structure in determining whether or not the pill appropriately serves in
shareholders’ best interests. The rationale for adopting the pill should be thoroughly explained by the company.
Additionally, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services examines the company’s existing governance structure including: board
independence, existing takeover defenses, or any problematic governance concerns.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for shareholder proposals that ask a company to submit its poison pill for shareholder ratification.
› Vote case-by-case on shareholder proposals to redeem a company’s poison pill.
› Vote case-by-case on management proposals to ratify a poison pill.
› Vote against or withhold from any board where a dead-hand poison pill provision is in place. From a shareholder
perspective, there is no justification for a dead-hand provision. Directors of companies with these lethal protective
devices should be held fully accountable.
Net Operating Loss (NOL) Poison Pills/Protective Amendments
The financial crisis prompted widespread losses in certain industries. This resulted in previously profitable companies
considering the adoption of a poison pill and/or NOL protective amendment to protect their NOL tax assets, which may
be lost upon an acquisition of 5 percent of a company's shares.
When evaluating management proposals seeking to adopt NOL pills or protective amendments, the purpose behind
the proposal, its terms, and the company's existing governance structure should be taken into account to assess
whether the structure actively promotes board entrenchment or adequately protects shareholder rights. While the
high estimated tax value of NOLs would typically benefit shareholders, the ownership acquisition limitations contained
in an NOL pill/protective amendment coupled with a company's problematic governance structure could serve as an
antitakeover device.
Given the low ownership thresholds involved, shareholders want to ensure that such pills/amendments do not remain
in effect permanently. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services will closely review whether the pill/amendment contains a sunset
provision or a commitment to cause the expiration of the NOL pill/protective amendment upon exhaustion or
expiration of the NOLs.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
42 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against proposals to adopt a poison pill/ protective amendment for the stated purpose of protecting a
company's net operating losses (“NOLs”) if the term of the pill/ protective amendment would exceed the shorter
of three years and the exhaustion of the NOL.
› Evaluate management proposals to ratify an NOL pill /adopt an NOL protective amendment if the term of the
pill/amendment would be the shorter of three years (or less) and the exhaustion of the NOL on a case-by-case
basis considering the following factors;
› The ownership threshold to transfer (NOL pills generally have a trigger slightly below 5% and NOL protective
amendments generally prohibit stock ownership transfers that would result in a new 5-percent holder or
increase the stock ownership percentage of an existing five-percent holder);
› The value of the NOLs;
› Shareholder protection mechanisms (sunset provision, or commitment to cause expiration of the pill upon
exhaustion or expiration of NOLs);
› The company’s existing governance structure including: board independence, existing takeover defenses, track
record of responsiveness to shareholders, and any other problematic governance concerns; and
› Any other factors that may be applicable.
Greenmail
Greenmail payments are targeted share repurchases by management of company stock from individuals or groups
seeking control of the company. Since only the hostile party receives payment, usually at a substantial premium over
the market value of shares, the practice discriminates against most shareholders. This transferred cash, absent the
greenmail payment, could be put to much better use for reinvestment in the company, payment of dividends, or to
fund a public share repurchase program.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for proposals to adopt an anti-greenmail provision in their charter or bylaws that would thereby restrict a
company’s ability to make greenmail payments to certain shareholders.
› Vote case-by-case on all anti-greenmail proposals when they are presented as bundled items with other charter or
bylaw amendments.
Shareholder Ability to Remove Directors/Fill Vacancies
Shareholder ability to remove directors, with or without cause, is either prescribed by a state’s business corporation
law, individual company’s articles of incorporation, or its corporate bylaws. Many companies have sought shareholder
approval for charter or bylaw amendments that would prohibit the removal of directors except for cause, thus ensuring
that directors would retain their directorship for their full-term unless found guilty of self-dealing. By requiring cause to
be demonstrated through due process, management insulates the directors from removal even if a director has been
performing poorly, not attending meetings, or not acting in the best interests of shareholders.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against proposals that provide that directors may be removed only for cause.
› Vote for proposals which seek to restore the authority of shareholders to remove directors with or without cause.
› Vote against proposals that provide only continuing directors may elect replacements to fill board vacancies.
› Vote for proposals that permit shareholders to elect directors to fill board vacancies.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
43 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Shareholder Ability to Alter the Size of the Board
Proposals that would allow management to increase or decrease the size of the board at its own discretion are often
used by companies as a takeover defense. Proposals to fix the size of the board at a specific number can prevent
management from increasing the board size without shareholder approval when facing a proxy context. By increasing
the size of the board, management can make it more difficult for dissidents to gain control of the board. Fixing the size
of the board also prevents a reduction in the size of the board as a strategy to oust independent directors. Fixing board
size also prevents management from increasing the number of directors in order to dilute the effects of cumulative
voting.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for proposals that seek to fix the size of the board within an acceptable range.
› Vote against proposals that give management the ability to alter the size of the board without shareholder
approval.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
44 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS
Confidential Voting
The confidential ballot ensures that voters are not subject to real or perceived coercion. In an open voting system,
management can determine who has voted against its nominees or proposals before a final vote count. As a result,
shareholders can be pressured to vote with management at companies with which they maintain or would like to
establish a business relationship.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for shareholder proposals that request corporations to adopt confidential voting, the use of independent
tabulators, and the use of independent inspectors for an election as long as the proposals include clauses for proxy
contests. In the case of a contested election, management is permitted to request that the dissident group honor
its confidential voting policy. If the dissidents agree, the policy remains in place. If the dissidents do not agree, the
confidential voting policy is waived.
› Vote for management proposals to adopt confidential voting procedures.
Shareholder Ability to Call Special Meetings
Most state corporation statutes allow shareholders to call a special meeting when they want to take action on certain
matters that arise between regularly scheduled annual meetings. Sometimes this right applies only if a shareholder or a
group of shareholders own a specified percentage of shares, with ten percent being the most common. Shareholders
may lose the ability to remove directors, initiate a shareholder resolution, or respond to a beneficial offer without
having to wait for the next scheduled meeting if they are unable to act at a special meeting of their own calling.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to call special meetings.
› Vote for proposals that remove restrictions on the right of shareholders to act independently of management.
› Vote against provisions that would require advance notice of more than sixty days.
Shareholder Ability to Act by Written Consent
Consent solicitations allow shareholders to vote on and respond to shareholder and management proposals by mail
without having to act at a physical meeting. A consent card is sent by mail for shareholder approval and only requires a
signature for action. Some corporate bylaws require supermajority votes for consents, while at others standard annual
meeting rules apply. Shareholders may lose the ability to remove directors, initiate a shareholder resolution, or
respond to a beneficial offer without having to wait for the next scheduled meeting if they are unable to act at a special
meeting of their own calling.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against proposals to restrict or prohibit shareholder ability to take action by written consent.
› Vote for proposals to allow or make easier shareholder action by written consent.
Unequal Voting Rights
Incumbent managers are able to use unequal voting rights through the creation of a separate class of shares that has
superior voting rights to the common shares of regular shareholders. This separate class of shares with
disproportionate voting power allows management to concentrate its power and insulate itself from the wishes of the
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
45 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
majority of shareholders. Dual class exchange offers involve a transfer of voting rights from one group of shareholders
to another group of shareholders typically through the payment of a preferential dividend. A dual class recapitalization
plan also establishes two classes of common stock with unequal voting rights, but initially involves an equal distribution
of preferential and inferior voting shares to current shareholders.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for resolutions that seek to maintain or convert to a one-share-one-vote capital structure.
› Generally vote against requests for the creation or continuation of dual class capital structures or the creation of
new or additional super-voting shares.
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Amend the Charter or Bylaws
Supermajority shareholder vote requirements for charter or bylaw amendments are often the result of “lock-in” votes,
which are the votes required to repeal new provisions to the corporate charter. Supermajority provisions violate the
principle that a simple majority of voting shares should be all that is necessary to effect change regarding a company
and its corporate governance provisions. Requiring more than this may entrench managers by blocking actions that are
in the best interests of shareholders.
The general lack of credit availability for financially distressed companies has resulted in “rescue” or highly dilutive
stock and warrant issuances, which often comprise a majority of the company’s voting stock upon conversion. When an
investor takes control of the company through the conversion of securities, the new owners often seek statutory
amendments, such as adopting written consent, or allowing 50 percent shareholders to call a special meeting, that
allow effective control over the company with little or no input from minority shareholders.
In such cases, the existing supermajority vote requirements would serve to protect minority shareholders’ interests.
The reduction in the vote requirements, when coupled with low quorum requirements (in Nevada and other states)
could shift the balance in power away from small shareholders while overly empowering large shareholders.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve charter and bylaw
amendments.
› Vote against management proposals seeking to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements when they
accompany management sponsored proposals to also change certain charter or bylaw amendments.
› Vote for management or shareholder proposals to reduce supermajority vote requirements for charter and bylaw
amendments. However, for companies with shareholders who have significant ownership levels, vote on a case-bycase basis, taking into account 1) ownership structure, 2) quorum requirements, and 3) supermajority vote
requirements.
Supermajority Shareholder Vote Requirement to Approve Mergers
Supermajority provisions violate the principle that a simple majority of voting shares should be all that is necessary to
effect change regarding a company and its corporate governance provisions. Requiring more than this may entrench
managers by blocking actions that are in the best interests of shareholders.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against management proposals to require a supermajority shareholder vote to approve mergers and other
significant business combinations.
› Vote for shareholder proposals to lower supermajority shareholder vote requirements for mergers and other
significant business combinations.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
46 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Reimbursing Proxy Solicitation Expenses
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally support shareholder proposals to reimburse for proxy solicitation expenses.
› When voting in conjunction with support of a dissident slate, always support the reimbursement of all appropriate
proxy solicitation expenses associated with the election.
› Generally support requests seeking to reimburse a shareholder proponent for all reasonable campaign
expenditures for a proposal approved by the majority of shareholders.
Exclusive Venue
Issuers began seeking shareholder approval of exclusive venue charter provisions in 2011 after a court opinion
suggested that unilaterally adopted exclusive venue bylaw provisions might not be enforceable. All the exclusive venue
proposals to date have sought to make Delaware the exclusive forum for resolution on shareholder disputes.
Corporations have defended exclusive forum provisions on the grounds that the Delaware Chancery Court moves cases
more quickly than other courts and is presided over by judges who are experienced in corporate law. Firms have also
argued that making Delaware the sole forum for lawsuits avoids the possibility of duplicative suits arising out of the
same events. A number of shareholder advocates have, however, countered that exclusive venue provisions deprive
shareholders of the flexibility to choose the forum in which to assert claims of wrongdoing.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to restrict the
venue for shareholder claims by adopting charter or bylaw provisions that seek to establish an exclusive judicial
forum.
Fee-Shifting Bylaws
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote against bylaws that mandate fee-shifting
whenever plaintiffs are not completely successful on the merits (i.e., in cases where the plaintiffs are partially
successful).
Bundled Proposals
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on bundled or conditional proxy proposals. In
the case of items that are conditioned upon each other, examine the benefits and costs of the packaged items. In
instances when the joint effect of the conditioned items is not in shareholders’ best interests, vote against the
proposals. If the combined effect is positive, support such proposals.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
47 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS / CORPORATE RESTRUCTURINGS
A number of academic and industry studies have estimated that nearly three quarters of all corporate acquisitions fail
to create economically meaningful shareholder value. These studies have also demonstrated that the larger the deal
the greater the risk in realizing long-term value for shareholders of the acquiring firm. These risks include integration
challenges, over-estimation of expected synergies, incompatible corporate cultures and poor succession planning.
Indeed, some studies have found that smaller deals within specialized industries on average outperform “big bet”
larger deals by a statistically significant factor.
In analyzing M&A deals, private placements or other transactional related items on proxy, Taft-Hartley Advisory
Services performs a well-rounded analysis that seeks to balance all facets of the deal to ascertain whether the
proposed acquisition is truly going to generate long-term value for shareholders and enhance the prospects of the
ongoing corporation.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Votes on mergers and acquisitions are always considered on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the following factors:
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Impact of the merger on shareholder value;
Perspective of ownership (target vs. acquirer) in the deal;
Form and mix of payment (i.e. stock, cash, debt, etc.);
Fundamental value drivers behind the deal;
Anticipated financial and operating benefits realizable through combined synergies;
Offer price (cost vs. premium);
Change-in-control payments to executive officers;
Financial viability of the combined companies as a single entity;
Was the deal put together in good faith? What kind of auction setting took place? Were negotiations carried out at
arm’s length? Was any portion of the process tainted by possible conflicts of interest?
Fairness opinion (or lack thereof);
Changes in corporate governance and their impact on shareholder rights;
What are the potential legal or environmental liability risks associated with the target firm?
Impact on community stakeholders and employees in both workforces; and
How will the merger adversely affect employee benefits like pensions and health care?
Fair Price Provisions
Fair price provisions were originally designed to specifically defend against the most coercive of takeover devises- the
two-tiered, front-end loaded tender offer. In such a hostile takeover, the bidder offers cash for enough shares to gain
control of the target. At the same time, the acquirer states that once control has been obtained, the target’s remaining
shares will be purchased with cash, cash and securities, or only securities. Since the payment offered for the remaining
stock is, by design, less valuable than the original offer for the controlling shares, shareholders are forced to sell out
early to maximize the value of their shares. Standard fair price provisions require that in the absence of board or
shareholder approval of the acquisition the bidder must pay the remaining shareholders the same price for their shares
that brought control.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for fair price proposals as long as the shareholder vote requirement embedded in the provision is no more
than a majority of disinterested shares.
› Vote for shareholder proposals to lower the shareholder vote requirement in existing fair price provisions.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
48 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Appraisal Rights
Rights of appraisal provide shareholders who do not approve of the terms of certain corporate transactions the right to
demand a judicial review in order to determine the fair value for their shares. The right of appraisal applies to mergers,
sale of corporate assets, and charter amendments that may have a materially adverse effect on the rights of dissenting
shareholders.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for proposals to restore or provide shareholders with the
right of appraisal.
Corporate Restructuring
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Votes concerning corporate restructuring proposals, including
minority squeeze outs, leveraged buyouts, spin-offs, liquidations, and asset sales, are considered on a case-by-case
basis.
Spin-offs
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on spin-offs depending on the tax and
regulatory advantages, planned use of sale proceeds, market focus, and managerial incentives.
Asset Sales
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Votes case-by-case on asset sales taking into consideration the
impact on the balance sheet/working capital, value received for the asset, and potential elimination of
diseconomies.
Liquidations
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on liquidations after reviewing management's
efforts to pursue other alternatives, appraisal value of assets, and the compensation plan for executives managing
the liquidation.
Going Private Transactions (LBOs, Minority Squeezeouts)
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote case-by-case on going private transactions, taking into account the following: offer price/premium, fairness
opinion, how the deal was negotiated, conflicts of interest, other alternatives/offers considered, and noncompletion risk.
› Vote case-by-case on “going dark” transactions, determining whether the transaction enhances shareholder value
by taking into consideration whether the company has attained benefits from being publicly-traded (examination
of trading volume, liquidity, and market research of the stock), cash-out value, whether the interests of continuing
and cashed-out shareholders are balanced, and market reaction to public announcement of transaction.
Changing Corporate Name
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for changing the corporate name in all instances if proposed
and supported by management and the board.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
49 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Plans of Reorganization (Bankruptcy)
The recent financial crisis has placed Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganizations as a potential alternative for distressed
companies. While the number of bankruptcies has risen as evidenced by many firms, including General Motors and
Lehman Brothers, the prevalence of these reorganizations can vary year over year due to, among other things, market
conditions and a company‘s ability to sustain its operations. Additionally, the amount of time that lapses between a
particular company‘s entrance into Chapter 11 and its submission of a plan of reorganization varies significantly
depending on the complexity, timing, and jurisdiction of the particular case. These plans are often put to a vote of
shareholders (in addition to other interested parties), as required by the Bankruptcy Code.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to common shareholders on
bankruptcy plans of reorganization, considering the following factors including, but not limited to:
›
›
›
›
›
›
Estimated value and financial prospects of the reorganized company;
Percentage ownership of current shareholders in the reorganized company;
Whether shareholders are adequately represented in the reorganization process (particularly through the
existence of an Official Equity Committee);
The cause(s) of the bankruptcy filing, and the extent to which the plan of reorganization addresses the cause(s);
Existence of a superior alternative to the plan of reorganization; and
Governance of the reorganized company.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
50 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
The management of a corporation’s capital structure involves a number of important issues including dividend policy,
types of assets, opportunities for growth, ability to finance new projects internally, and the cost of obtaining additional
capital. Many financing decisions have a significant impact on shareholder value, particularly when they involve the
issuance of additional common stock, preferred stock, or debt.
Common Stock Authorization
State statutes and stock exchanges require shareholder approval for increases in the number of common shares.
Corporations increase their supply of common stock for a variety of ordinary business purposes: raising new capital,
funding stock compensation programs, business acquisitions, implementation of stock splits, or payment of stock
dividends.
Clear justification should accompany all management requests for shareholder approval of increases in authorized
common stock. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports increases in authorized common stock to fund stock splits that
are in shareholders’ interests. Consideration will be made on a case-by-case basis on proposals when the company
intends to use the additional stock to implement a poison pill or other takeover defense. The amount of additional
stock requested in comparison to the requests of the company’s peers as well as the company’s articulated reason for
the increase must be evaluated. Dual requests on the same ballot, in which an increase in common stock is requested
in tandem with a reverse stock split in which shares are not proportionately reduced may not be in shareholder best
interests. Although the reverse stock split may be needed in the face of imminent delisting, there is little justification in
effectively approving two increases in common stock on the same ballot.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote case-by-case on proposals to increase the number of shares of common stock authorized for issue. The
following factors will be considered:
› Past Board Performance: the company‘s historical use of authorized shares in the previous three years;
› The Current Request: i) disclosure on specific reasons/rationale for the proposed increase; ii) the dilutive
impact of the request; and iii) disclosure of specific risks to shareholders of not approving the request.
› Vote against proposals at companies with dual-class capital structures to increase the number of authorized shares
of the class of stock that has superior voting rights.
› Vote against proposed common stock authorizations that increase the existing authorization by more than fifty
percent unless a clear need for the excess shares is presented by the company.
› Vote against proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares if a vote for a reverse stock split on
the same ballot is warranted despite the fact that the authorized shares would not be reduced proportionally.
Stock Distributions: Splits and Dividends
Stock splits/dividends involve the partitioning of the outstanding shares of a corporation into a larger number of
shares, while proportionately decreasing the market price of the stock. Stock splits/dividends do not affect the equity
of the company. An understanding of forward and reverse stock splits and stock dividends is relevant because
proposals to increase authorized common shares may be tied to the implementation of a planned stock distribution.
Shareholders can effectively cancel a split or dividend if the company does not have sufficient shares to implement a
split without an increase in authorized shares.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
51 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for management proposals to increase the
common share authorization for stock split or stock dividend, provided that the increase in authorized shares is
reasonable in accordance with Taft-Hartley Advisory Services' Common Stock Authorization policy.
Reverse Stock Splits
Reverse splits exchange multiple shares for a lesser amount to increase share price. Increasing share price is sometimes
necessary to restore a company’s share price to a level that will allow it to be traded on the national stock exchanges.
In addition, some brokerage houses have a policy of not monitoring or investing in very low priced shares. Reverse
stock splits can help maintain stock liquidity.
Evaluation of management proposals to implement a reverse stock split will take into account whether there is a
corresponding proportional decrease in authorized shares. Without a corresponding decrease, a reverse stock split is
effectively an increase in authorized shares by way of reducing the number of shares outstanding, while leaving the
number of authorized shares to be issued at the pre-split level.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support a reverse stock split if the number of
authorized shares will be reduced proportionately. When there is not a proportionate reduction of authorized
shares, Taft-Hartley trustees should oppose such proposals unless a stock exchange has provided notice to the
company of a potential delisting. Shareholders should only vote for non-proportionate reverse stock splits in the
most dire of situations. Companies should provide disclosure of external evidence that a potential delisting is
imminent to separate the true emergencies from vague potential risks to shareholders.
Preferred Stock Authorization
Preferred stock is an equity security which has certain features similar to debt instruments- such as fixed dividend
payments and seniority of claims to common stock - and usually carries little to no voting rights. The terms of blank
check preferred stock give the board of directors the power to issue shares of preferred stock at their discretion with
voting, conversion, distribution, and other rights to be determined by the board at time of issue.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for proposals to authorize preferred stock in cases where
the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and the terms of the
preferred stock appear reasonable. Consider company-specific factors including:
›
›
›
Past Board Performance: the company‘s historical use of authorized preferred shares over the previous three
years;
The Current Request: 1) disclosure on specific reasons/rationale for the proposed increase; 2) the dilutive impact
of the request; and 3) disclosure of specific risks to shareholders of not approving the request;
Whether the shares requested are blank check preferred shares that can be used for antitakeover purposes.
Blank Check Preferred Stock
Blank check preferred stock, with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend, distribution, and other rights, can be used
for sound corporate purposes but can also be used as a device to thwart hostile takeovers without shareholder
approval.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote against proposals that would authorize the creation of new classes of blank check preferred stock.
› Vote against proposals to increase the number of blank check preferred stock authorized for issuance when no
shares have been issued or reserved for a specific purpose.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
52 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
Vote for proposals to create “declawed” blank check preferred stock (stock that cannot be used as a takeover
defense).
Vote for requests to require shareholder approval for blank check authorizations.
Adjust Par Value of Common Stock
Stock that has a fixed per share value that is on its certificate is called par value stock. The purpose of par value stock is
to establish the maximum responsibility of a stockholder in the event that a corporation becomes insolvent. Proposals
to reduce par value come from certain state level requirements for regulatory industries such as banks and other legal
requirements relating to the payment of dividends.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for management proposals to reduce the par value of
common stock.
Preemptive Rights
Preemptive rights permit shareholders to share proportionately in any new issues of stock of the same class. These
rights guarantee existing shareholders the first opportunity to purchase shares of new issues of stock in the same class
as their own and in the same proportion. The absence of these rights could cause stockholders’ interest in a company
to be reduced by the sale of additional shares without their knowledge and at prices unfavorable to them. Preemptive
rights, however, can make it difficult for corporations to issue large blocks of stock for general corporate purposes.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals to create or abolish preemptive
rights. In evaluating proposals on preemptive rights, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services looks at the size of a company
and the characteristics of its shareholder base.
Debt Restructuring
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote case-by-case on proposals regarding debt restructurings.
› Vote for the debt restructuring if it is expected that the company will file for bankruptcy if the transaction is not
approved.
› Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to increase common and/or preferred shares and to issue shares as part
of a debt-restructuring plan. The following factors are considered:
› Dilution—How much will the ownership interest of existing shareholders be reduced, and how extreme will
dilution to any future earnings be?
› Change in Control—Will the transaction result in a change in control of the company? Are board and
committee seats guaranteed? Do standstill provisions and voting agreements exist?
› Financial Issues— company's financial situation, degree of need for capital, use of proceeds, and effect of the
financing on the company's cost of capital;
› Terms of the offer—discount/premium in purchase price to investor including any fairness opinion,
termination penalties and exit strategy;
› Conflict of interest—arm's length transactions and managerial incentives; and
› Management's efforts to pursue other alternatives.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
53 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
STATE OF INCORPORATION
Voting on State Takeover Statutes
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Review on a case-by-case basis proposals to opt in or out of state
takeover statutes (including control share acquisition statutes, control share cash-out statutes, freeze out
provisions, fair price provisions, stakeholder laws, poison pill endorsements, severance pay and labor contract
provisions, anti-greenmail provisions, and disgorgement provisions). Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally
supports opting into stakeholder protection statutes if they provide comprehensive protections for employees and
community stakeholders. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services is less supportive of takeover statutes that only serve to
protect incumbent management from accountability to shareholders and which negatively influence shareholder
value.
Reincorporation Proposals
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Management or shareholder proposals to change a company's
state of incorporation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, giving consideration to both financial and
corporate governance concerns including the following:
›
›
›
Reasons for reincorporation;
Comparison of company's governance practices and provisions prior to and following the reincorporation; and
Comparison of corporation laws of original state and destination state.
Vote for reincorporation when the economic factors outweigh any neutral or negative governance changes.
Offshore Reincorporations and Tax Havens
For a company that seeks to reincorporate, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services evaluates the merits of the move on a caseby-case basis, taking into consideration the company’s strategic rationale for the move, the potential economic
ramifications, potential tax benefits, and any corporate governance changes that may impact shareholders. TaftHartley Advisory Services believes there are a number of concerns associated with a company looking to reincorporate
from the United States to offshore locales such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Panama. With more U.S.-listed
companies seeking to move offshore, shareholders are beginning to understand the web of complexities surrounding
the legal, tax, and governance implications involved in such a transaction.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
›
Vote case-by-case on proposed offshore moves, taking into consideration:
› Legal recourse for U.S. stockholders of the new company and the enforcement of legal judgments against the
company under the U.S. securities laws;
› The transparency (or lack thereof) of the new locale’s legal system;
› Adoption of any shareholder-unfriendly corporate law provisions;
› Actual, quantifiable tax benefits associated with foreign incorporation;
› Potential for accounting manipulations and/or discrepancies;
› Any pending U.S. legislation concerning offshore companies;
› Prospects of reputational harm and potential damage to brand name via increased media coverage concerning
corporate expatriation.
›
Generally vote for shareholder requests calling for “expatriate” companies that are domiciled abroad yet
predominantly owned and operated in America to re-domesticate back to a U.S. state jurisdiction.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
54 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
While a firm’s country of incorporation will remain the primary basis for evaluating companies, Taft-Hartley Advisory
Services will generally apply its U.S. policies to the extent possible with respect to issuers that file DEF 14As, 10-K
annual reports, and 10-Q quarterly reports, and are thus considered domestic issuers by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). U.S. policies will also apply to companies listed on U.S. exchanges as Foreign Private
Issuers (FPIs) and that may be exempt from the disclosure and corporate governance requirements that apply to most
companies traded on U.S. exchanges, including a number of SEC rules and stock market listing requirements.
Corporations that have reincorporated outside the U.S. have found themselves subject to a combination of governance
regulations and best practice standards that may not be entirely compatible with an evaluation framework based solely
on the country of incorporation.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
55 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY
Social, Environmental and Sustainability Issues
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports social, workforce, and environmental shareholder-sponsored
resolutions if they seek to create responsible corporate citizens while at the same time attempting to enhance longterm shareholder value. Taft-Hartley Advisory Services typically supports proposals that ask for disclosure reporting of
information that is not available outside the company that is not proprietary in nature. Such reporting is particularly
most vital when it appears that a company has not adequately addressed shareholder concerns regarding social,
workplace, environmental and/or other issues. A determination whether the request is relevant to the company’s core
business and in-line with industry practice will be made on a case-by-case basis. The proponent of the resolution must
make the case that the benefits of additional disclosure outweigh the costs of producing the report.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: In analyzing social, workplace, environmental, and other related
proposals, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services considers the following factors:
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Whether the proposal itself is well framed and reasonable;
Whether adoption of the proposal would have either a positive or negative impact on the company's short-term or
long-term share value;
Whether the company's analysis and voting recommendation to shareholders is persuasive;
The degree to which the company's stated position on the issues could affect its reputation or sales, or leave it
vulnerable to boycott or selective purchasing;
Whether the subject of the proposal is best left to the discretion of the board;
Whether the issues presented in the proposal are best dealt with through legislation, government regulation, or
company-specific action;
The company's approach compared with its peers or any industry standard practices for addressing the issue(s)
raised by the proposal;
Whether the company has already responded in an appropriate or sufficient manner to the issue(s) raised in the
proposal;
If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether or not sufficient information is
publically available to shareholders and whether it would be unduly burdensome for the company to compile and
avail the requested information to shareholders in a more comprehensive or amalgamated fashion;
Whether implementation of the proposal would achieve the objectives sought in the proposal.
In general, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports proposals that request the company to furnish information helpful
to shareholders in evaluating the company’s operations from top to bottom. In order to be able to intelligently monitor
their investments, shareholders often need information that is best provided by the company in which they have
invested on behalf of their end beneficiaries. Qualified requests satisfying the aforementioned criteria usually merit
support.
Proposals requesting that the company cease certain actions that the proponent believes are harmful to society or
some segment of society will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Special attention will be made to the company’s
legal and ethical obligations, its ability to remain profitable, and potential negative publicity if the company fails to
honor the request. A high standard will need to be met by proponents requesting specific action like divesture of a
business line or operation, legal remuneration, or withdrawal from certain high-risk markets.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
56 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
I. GENERAL CSR RELATED
Special Policy Review and Shareholder Advisory Committees
These resolutions propose the establishment of special committees of the board to address broad corporate policy and
provide forums for ongoing dialogue on issues including, but not limited to: shareholder relations, the environment,
occupational health and safety, and executive compensation.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Support these proposals when they appear to offer a potentially
effective method for enhancing shareholder value.
International Operations
The rise of globalization has put increasing importance on the need for U.S. companies to periodically monitor their
business operations abroad. As a means to preserve brand integrity and protect against potentially costly litigation and
negative public relations, Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports shareholder proposals which call for a
report on the company’s core business policies and procedures of its operations outside the United States.
Many of the resolutions which address a company’s international policies can include: impact of Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) in emerging market economies; corporate safeguards against money laundering; terrorist financing;
economic de-stabilization concerns; relationships with international financial institutions (IFIs); and product
sales/marketing abroad (i.e., tobacco, pharmaceutical drug pricing).
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support proposals asking for policy clarification and
reporting on international operations that can materially impact the company’s short and long-term bottom-line.
Affirm Political Non-Partisanship
Employees should not be put in a position where professional standing and goodwill within the corporation could be
jeopardized as a result of political beliefs. Responsible employment practices should protect workers from an
environment characterized by political indoctrination or intimidation. Corporations should not devote resources to
partisan political activities, nor should they compel their employees to contribute to or support particular causes.
Moreover, it is wise for a corporation to maintain a politically neutral stance as to avoid potentially embarrassing
conflicts of interests that could negatively impact the company’s brand name with consumers.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support proposals affirming political non-partisanship
within the company.
Political Contributions, Lobbying Reporting & Disclosure
Changes in legislation that governs corporate political giving have, rather than limiting such contributions, increased
the complexity of tracking how much money corporations contribute to the political process and where that money
ultimately ends up. In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election
Commission lifted restrictions on corporate spending in federal elections. A company’s involvement in the political
process could impact shareholder value if such activities are not properly overseen and managed.
Shareholders have the right to know about corporate political activities, and management’s knowledge that such
information can be made publicly available should encourage a company’s lawful and responsible use of political
contributions.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
57 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Moreover, it is critical that shareholders understand the internal controls that are in place at a company to adequately
manage political contributions and lobbying practices. Given the significant reputational and financial risk involved in
political giving, shareholders should expect management to have the necessary capabilities to monitor and track all
monies distributed toward political groups and causes. These internal controls should be fully consistent with Section
404 requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
While political contributions, lobbying and other corporate political activity can benefit the strategic interests of a
company, it is important that accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that monies disbursed in support of
political objectives actually generate identifiable returns on shareholder wealth. Such mechanisms serve to insure
against the use of shareholder funds in the furtherance of narrow management agendas.
When analyzing the proposals, special consideration will be made if the target company has been the subject of
significant controversy stemming from its contributions or political activities, if the company fails to disclose a policy to
shareholders that outlines the process by which the company considers its political contributions and lobbying
activities, or if the company has recently been involved in significant controversy or litigation related to the company’s
political contributions or governmental affairs.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Support reporting of political and political action committee (PAC) contributions.
› Support establishment of corporate political contributions guidelines and internal reporting provisions or controls.
› Generally support shareholder proposals requesting companies to review and report on their political lobbying
activities including efforts to influence governmental legislation.
› Vote against shareholder proposals asking to publish in newspapers and public media the company’s political
contributions as such publications could present significant cost to the company without providing commensurate
value to shareholders.
Military Sales
Shareholder proposals from church groups and other community organizations have asked companies for detailed
reports on foreign military sales. These proposals often can be created at reasonable cost to the company and contain
no proprietary data. Large companies can supply this information without undue burden and provide shareholders
with information affecting corporate performance and decision-making.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally support reports on foreign military sales and economic conversion of facilities and where such reporting
will not disclose sensitive information that could impact the company adversely or increase its legal exposure.
› Generally vote against proposals asking a company to develop specific military contracting criteria.
Report on Operations in Sensitive Regions or Countries
Over the past decade, a number of public companies – especially within the extractive sector – have withdrawn from
geopolitically sensitive regions as a result of being associated with political controversies involving their host countries
(i.e. Myanmar, the Sudan, China, Iran, etc.). Oil and natural gas companies, in particular, continue to be the largest
investors in many countries involved in human rights abuse and terrorist activities. As such, these companies become
targets of consumer boycotts, public relations backlash and even governmental intervention.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally support shareholder proposals to adopt labor standards in connection with involvement in a certain
market and other potentially sensitive geopolitical regions.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
58 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
›
›
Generally support shareholder proposals seeking a report on operations within a certain market and
documentation of costs of continued involvement in a given country or region.
Generally support requests for establishment of a board committee to review and report on the reputational risks
and legal compliance with U.S. sanctions as a result of the company’s continued operations in countries associated
with terrorist sponsored activities.
Consider shareholder proposals to pull out of a certain market on a case-by-case basis considering factors such as
overall cost, FDI exposure, level of disclosure for investors, magnitude of controversy, and the current business
focus of the company.
II. ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE
Shareholder proposals addressing environmental and energy concerns have been plentiful in recent years, and
generally seek greater disclosure on an issue or seek to improve a company’s environmental practices in order to
protect the world’s natural resources. In addition, some proponents cite the negative financial implications for
companies with poor environmental practices, including liabilities associated with site clean-ups and lawsuits, as well
as arguments that energy efficient products and clean environmental practices are sustainable business practices that
will contribute to long-term shareholder value. Shareholders say the majority of independent atmospheric scientists
agree that global warming poses a serious problem to the health and welfare of all countries, citing the findings of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s most authoritative scientific body on the subject.
Shareholder proponents argue that companies can report on their greenhouse gas emissions within a few months at
reasonable cost.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scientists generally agree that gases released by chemical reactions including the burning of fossil fuels contribute to a
“greenhouse effect” that traps the planet’s heat. Environmentalists claim that the greenhouse gases produced by the
industrial age have caused recent weather crises such as heat waves, rainstorms, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and
receding coastlines. With notable exceptions, a number of business leaders have described the rise and fall of global
temperatures as naturally occurring phenomena and depicted corporate impact on climate change as minimal.
Shareholder proposals asking a company to issue a report to shareholders – at reasonable cost and omitting
proprietary information – on greenhouse gas emissions ask that the report include descriptions of efforts within
companies to reduce emissions, their financial exposure and potential liability from operations that contribute to global
warming, and their direct or indirect efforts to promote the view that global warming is not a threat. Proponents argue
that there is scientific proof that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming, that future legislation may make
companies financially liable for their contributions to global warming, changing market dynamics and consumer
preferences may impact demand for fossil fuels, and thus shareholder value, and that a report on the company’s role in
global warming can be assembled at reasonable cost.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
›
›
›
Generally vote for shareholder proposals calling for a company to commit to reducing its greenhouse gas
emissions under a reasonable timeline.
Generally vote for resolutions requesting that a company disclose information on the risks related to climate
change on its operations and investments, such as financial, physical, or regulatory risks.
Generally vote for proposals requesting a report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from company operations
and/or products and operations.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
59 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Investment in Renewable Energy
Filers of proposals on renewable energy ask companies to increase their investment in renewable energy sources and
to work to develop products that rely more on renewable energy sources. Increased use of renewable energy is
expected to reduce the negative environmental impact of energy companies. In addition, as supplies of oil and coal
exist in the earth in limited quantities, renewable energy sources represent a competitive, and some would even argue
essential, long-term business strategy.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support shareholder proposals seeking increased
investment in renewable energy sources, taking into account whether the terms of the resolution are realistic or
overly restrictive for management to pursue.
Sustainability Reporting and Planning
The concept of sustainability is commonly understood as meeting the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Indeed, the term sustainability is complex and
poses significant challenges for companies on many levels. Many in the investment community have termed this
broader responsibility the “triple bottom line,” referring to the triad of performance goals related to economic
prosperity, social responsibility and environmental quality. In essence, the concept requires companies to balance the
needs and interests of their various stakeholders while operating in a manner that sustains business growth for the
long-term, supports local communities and protects the environment and natural capital for future generations.
Reporting and enhanced disclosure addressing sustainable development is important to companies namely because it
offers a formal structure for decision making that helps management teams anticipate and address important global
trends that can have serious consequences for business and society. Shareholders may request general sustainability
reports on a specific location or operation, often requesting that the company detail the environmental, social, legal
and other risks and/or potential liabilities of the specific project in question.
A number of companies have begun to report on sustainability issues using established standards in the marketplace.
Such reporting focuses on corporate compliance and measurement regarding key economic, environmental, and social
performance indicators. As a best practice, companies release annual sustainability reports in conjunction to regular
annual statement of operations.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support shareholder proposals seeking greater
disclosure on the company’s environmental and social practices, and/or associated risks and liabilities.
Operations in Protected or Sensitive Areas
Operating in regions protected or established under national or international categorization guidelines, including
wildlife refuges, national forests, and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
categorized areas, expose companies to increased oversight and the potential for associated risk and controversy.
While it is important for a company to have the flexibility to operate in these regions to take advantage of strategic
placement or growth, additional disclosure could be an important mitigating factor to address increased risk and
oversight. Restrictions to the company’s operations, damaging public relations, and costly litigation resulting from
failure to comply with the requirements associated with protected or categorized regions could have a significant
impact on shareholder value.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support shareholder requests for reports outlining
potential environmental damage from operations in protected regions, including wildlife refuges, unless the
company does not currently have operations or plans to develop operations in these protected regions.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
60 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Hydraulic Fracturing
Shareholder proponents have elevated concerns on the use of hydraulic fracturing, an increasingly controversial
process in which water, sand, and a mix of chemicals is blasted horizontally into tight layers of shale rock to extract
natural gas. As this practice has gained more widespread use, environmentalists have raised concerns that the
chemicals mixed with sand and water to aid the fracturing process can contaminate ground water supplies. Proponents
of resolutions at companies that employ hydraulic fracturing are also concerned that wastewater produced by the
process could overload the waste treatment plants to which it is shipped. Shareholders have asked companies that
utilize hydraulic fracturing to report on the environmental impact of the practice and to disclose policies designed to
reduce hazards from the process.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for requests seeking greater transparency on the practice of
hydraulic fracturing and its associated risks.
Recycling Policy
A number of companies have received proposals to step-up their recycling efforts, with the goal of reducing the
company’s negative impact on the environment and reducing costs over the long-term.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals that ask companies to
increase their recycling efforts or to adopt a formal recycling policy.
Endorsement of CERES Principles
These resolutions call for the adoption of principles that encourage the company to protect the environment and the
safety and health of its employees. The CERES Principles, formulated by the Coalition of Environmentally Responsible
Economies, require signing companies to address environmental issues, including protection of the biosphere,
sustainable use of natural resources, reduction and disposal of wastes, energy conservation, and employee and
community risk reduction. A signatory to the CERES Principles would disclose its efforts in such areas through a
standardized report submitted to CERES and made available to the public.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services supports proposals that improve a company’s public image, reduce exposure to
liabilities, and establish standards so that environmentally responsible companies and markets are not at a competitive
financial disadvantage.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for requests asking a company to formally adopt the CERES Principles.
› Vote for adoption of reports to shareholders on environmental issues.
Land Use
Many large retail stores and real estate development firms have received criticism over their policies and processes for
acquiring and developing land. Often, in such cases, there are organizations that support as well as those that oppose
the proposed development.
Many of these requests brought forth by the respective stakeholders raise serious issues that can have a real impact on
short-term shareholder value. However in some cases, additional reporting may be duplicative of existing disclosure or
may fail to provide added benefit to shareholders commensurate with the associated cost or burden of providing
additional information. Some of the companies targeted with such resolutions have been subject to recent litigation,
significant fines stemming from their land use practices, and/or recent community boycotts.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
61 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support shareholder resolutions that request better
disclosure of detailed information on a company’s policies related to land use or development or compliance with
local and national laws and zoning requirements.
Water Use
Shareholders may ask for a company to prepare a report evaluating the business risks linked to water use and impacts
on the company’s supply chain, including subsidiaries and bottling partners. Such proposals also ask companies to
disclose current policies and procedures for mitigating the impact of operations on local communities in areas of water
scarcity.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals seeking the preparation of a
report on a company’s risks linked to water use.
III. WORKPLACE PRACTICES & HUMAN RIGHTS
Equal Employment Opportunity
These proposals generally request that a company establish a policy of reporting to shareholders its progress with
equal opportunity and affirmative action programs. The costs of violating federal laws that prohibit discrimination by
corporations are high and can affect corporate earnings.
The Equal Opportunities Employment Commission (EEOC) does not release the company’s filings to the public unless it
is involved in litigation, and it is difficult to obtain from other sources. Companies need to be sensitive to minority
employment issues as the work force becomes increasingly diverse. This information can be provided with little cost to
the company and does not create an unreasonable burden on management.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for proposals calling for action on equal employment opportunity and anti-discrimination.
› Vote for proposals requesting legal and regulatory compliance and public reporting related to non-discrimination,
affirmative action, workplace health and safety, environmental issues, and labor policies and practices that affect
long-term corporate performance.
› Vote for proposals advocating for non-discrimination in salary, wages, and all benefits.
High-Performance Workplace
High-performance workplace practices emphasize employee training, participation, and feedback. The concept of a
high-performance workplace has been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Labor and refers to a workplace that is
designed to provide workers with the information, skills, incentives, and responsibility to make decisions essential for
innovation, quality improvement and rapid response to changes in the marketplace. These standards embrace a “what
is good for the worker is good for the company” philosophy. Studies have shown that improvement in human
resources practices is associated with increases in total return to shareholders. High-performance workplace standards
proposals can include linking compensation to social measures such as employee training, morale and safety,
environmental performance and workplace lawsuits.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support proposals that incorporate high-performance
workplace standards.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
62 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Workplace Safety
In light of recent fatal accidents at oil refineries (Tesoro – Anacortes refinery, April 2010; and BP – Texas City refinery,
March 2005), the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico, and the explosion at Massey Energy's
Upper Big Branch mine in 2010, shareholders have sought greater transparency and accountability regarding workplace
safety by filing resolutions at a number of corporations.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requesting requests for
workplace safety reports, including reports on accident risk reduction efforts.
Non-Discrimination in Retirement Benefits
A cash balance plan is a defined benefit plan that treats an earned retirement benefit as if it were a credit from a
defined contribution plan, but which provides a stated benefit at the end of its term. Because employer contributions
to these plans are credited evenly over the life of a plan and not based on a seniority formula, they may reduce payouts
to long-term employees who are currently vested in plans.
Cash-balance pension conversions have undergone significant congressional and federal agency scrutiny in the wake of
high-profile EEOC complaints on age discrimination and employee anger at several large blue-chip companies. While
significant policy reform is unlikely in the short-term, business interests are worried enough that the National
Association of Manufacturers and other pro-business lobbies have formed a coalition on Capitol Hill to preserve the
essential features of the plans and to overturn an IRS ruling.
Driving the push behind conversions from traditional pension plans to cash-balance plans are the substantial savings
that companies generate in the process. Critics point out that this savings is gained at the expense of the most senior
employees. Shareholder resolutions may call on corporate boards to establish a committee of outside directors to
prepare a report to shareholders on the potential impact of pension-related proposals being considered by national
policymakers in reaction to the controversy spawned by the plans.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Support proposals calling for a non-discrimination policy with
regard to retirement benefits and pension management at a company.
Fair Lending Reporting and Compliance
These resolutions call for financial institutions to comply with fair lending laws and statutes while avoiding predatory
practices in their sub-prime lending. These predatory practices include: lending to borrowers with inadequate income,
who will then default; not reporting on payment performances of borrowers to credit agencies; implying that credit life
insurance is necessary to obtain the loan (packing); unnecessarily high fees; refinancing with high additional fees rather
than working out a loan that is in arrears (flipping); and high pre-payment fees.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Support proposals calling for full compliance with fair-lending laws.
› Support reporting on overall lending policies and data.
MacBride Principles
These resolutions have called for the adoption of the MacBride Principles for operations located in Northern Ireland.
They request companies operating abroad to support the equal employment opportunity policies that apply in facilities
they operate domestically. The principles were established to address the sectarian hiring problems between
Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. It is well documented that Northern Ireland’s Catholic community faced
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
63 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
much higher unemployment figures than the Protestant community. In response to this problem, the U.K. government
instituted the New Fair Employment Act of 1989 (and subsequent amendments) to address the sectarian hiring
problems.
Many companies believe that the Act adequately addresses the problems and that further action, including adoption of
the MacBride Principles, only duplicates the efforts already underway. In evaluating a proposal to adopt the MacBride
Principles, shareholders must decide whether the principles will cause companies to divest, and therefore worsen the
unemployment problem, or whether the principles will promote equal hiring practices. Proponents believe that the Fair
Employment Act does not sufficiently address the sectarian hiring problems. They argue that the MacBride Principles
serve to stabilize the situation and promote further investment.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Support the MacBride Principles for operations in Northern
Ireland that request that companies abide by equal employment opportunity policies.
Contract Supplier Standards
These resolutions call for compliance with governmental mandates and corporate policies regarding nondiscrimination,
affirmative action, work place safety and health, and other basic labor protections.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support proposals that:
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Seek publication of a “Worker Code of Conduct” to be implemented by the company’s foreign suppliers and
licensees, requiring they satisfy all applicable labor standards and laws protecting employees’ wages, benefits,
working conditions, freedom of association, right to collectively bargain, and other rights;
Request a report summarizing the company’s current practices for enforcement of its Worker Code of Conduct;
Seek to establish independent monitoring mechanism in conjunction with local and respected religious and human
rights groups to monitor supplier and licensee compliance with the Worker Code of Conduct;
Create incentives to encourage suppliers to raise standards rather than terminate contracts;
Implement policies for ongoing wage adjustments, ensuring adequate purchasing power and a sustainable living
wage for employees of foreign suppliers and licensees;
Request public disclosure of contract supplier reviews on a regular basis; and
Adopt labor standards for foreign and domestic suppliers to ensure that the company will not do business with
foreign suppliers that manufacture products for sale in the U.S. using forced or child labor or with suppliers that
fail to comply with applicable laws protecting employees’ wages and working conditions.
Corporate and Supplier Codes of Conduct
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services generally supports proposals that call for the adoption and/or enforcement of clear
principles or codes of conduct relating to countries in which there are systematic violations of human rights. These
conditions include the use of slave, child, or prison labor, undemocratically elected governments, widespread reports
by human rights advocates, fervent pro-democracy protests, or economic sanctions and boycotts.
Many proposals refer to the seven core conventions, commonly referred to as the “Declaration on Fundamental
Principles and Rights At Work,” ratified by the International Labor Organization (ILO). The seven conventions fall under
four broad categories: i) right to organize and bargain collectively; ii) non-discrimination in employment; iii) abolition of
forced labor; and iv) end of child labor. Each member nation of the ILO body is bound to respect and promote these
rights to the best of their abilities.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
64 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Support the principles and codes of conduct relating to company investment and/or operations in countries with
patterns of human rights abuses or pertaining to geographic regions experiencing political turmoil (Northern
Ireland, Columbia, Burma, former Soviet Union, and China).
› Support the implementation and reporting on ILO codes of conduct.
› Support independent monitoring programs in conjunction with local and respected religious and human rights
groups to monitor supplier and licensee compliance with Codes.
› Support requests that a company conduct an assessment of the human rights risks in its operation or in its supply
chain, or report on its human rights risk assessment process.
IV. CONSUMER HEALTH & PUBLIC SAFETY
Phase-out or Label Products Containing Genetically Engineered Ingredients
Shareholder activists request companies engaged in the development of genetically modified agricultural products
(GMOs) to adopt a policy of not marketing or distributing such products until long term safety testing demonstrates
that they are not harmful to humans, animals or the environment. Until further long term testing demonstrates that
these products are not harmful, companies in the restaurant, prepared foods and packaging industries are being asked
to remove genetically altered ingredients from products they manufacture, distribute or sell, and label such products in
the interim. Shareholders are asking supermarket companies to do the same for their own private label brands.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for shareholder proposals to label products that contain genetically engineered products.
› Generally vote against proposals calling for a full phase out of product lines containing GMO ingredients.
Tobacco-Related Proposals
Shareholders file resolutions annually asking that companies with ties to the tobacco industry account for their
marketing and distribution strategies, particularly as they impact smoking by young people. While the specific
resolutions for shareholder proponents vary from year to year, activist shareholders consistently make the tobacco
industry a prominent target. Examples of tobacco proposals include: attempting to link executive compensation with
teen smoking rates; the placement of company tobacco products in retail outlets; the impact of second hand smoke;
and a review of advertising campaigns and their impact on children and minority groups.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Vote for shareholder proposals seeking to limit the sale of tobacco products to minors.
› Generally vote against proposals calling for a full phase out of tobacco related product lines.
Toxic Emissions
Shareholder proposals asking companies to take steps to minimize their emissions of toxic chemicals or release of toxic
wastes into the environment can vary greatly. Some focus on reporting on the impact of these chemicals on the
communities in which the company operates. Still others ask for a review of the company’s efforts to minimize
pollution.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Vote for shareholder proposals calling on the company to
establish a plan to reduce toxic emissions.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
65 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Toxic Chemicals
The use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics, consumables, and household products has become a growing issue of concern
for shareholders as international regulations on this topic continue to expand, providing increased scrutiny over
potentially toxic materials or compounds used or emitted in the conduct of operations or as an ingredient in consumer
goods. Shareholders must recognize the impact that changing regulation and consumer expectations could have on
shareholder value and should encourage companies to disclose their policies regarding the use or emission of toxic
chemicals. Specific considerations should be made for a company’s geographic markets and the appearance of
historical difficulties with controversy, fines, or litigation, requests for disclosure on the potential financial and legal risk
associated with toxic chemicals.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally support resolutions requesting that a company disclose its policies related to toxic chemicals.
› Generally support shareholder resolutions requesting that companies evaluate and disclose the potential financial
and legal risks associated with utilizing certain chemicals.
› Consider shareholder proposals requesting companies to substitute or replace existing products on a case-by-case
basis, with consideration for applicable regulations and standards in the markets in which the company
participates.
Nuclear Safety
These resolutions are filed at companies that manage nuclear power facilities or produce components for nuclear
reactors to request disclosure on the risks to the company associated with these operations, including physical security
and the potential for environmental damage. Current reporting requirements for companies that operate nuclear
facilities are managed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and include detailed reports on safety and security
that are available to the public.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support shareholder resolutions requesting that
companies report on risks associated with their nuclear reactor designs and/or the production and interim storage
of irradiated fuel rods.
Concentrated Area Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
The level of pollution resulting from CAFOs has drawn increased attention in recent years as certain legal decisions
have established the precedent that a company can be held liable for the actions of the contract farms it sources from.
Fines and remediation expenses stemming from these cases have been significant and could have a notable impact on
the companies’ operations and shareholder value.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation: Generally support resolutions requesting that companies report
to shareholders on the risks and liabilities associated with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) unless
the company has publicly disclosed guidelines for its corporate and contract farming operations (including
compliance monitoring), or if the company does not directly source from CAFOs.
Pharmaceutical Product Reimportation
One of the most visible aspects of the legal and political debate over rising health care costs in the United States can be
seen through prescription drug reimportation through Canada. While U.S. and Canadian regulations limit
reimportation, several states have taken steps to encourage employees to actively seek less expensive medications
through reimportation.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
66 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
Shareholder action at major pharmaceutical companies has hinged around requesting increased disclosure of the
financial and legal risks associated with company policies, or called on companies to change distribution limits to
increase product availability in Canada, thereby encouraging product reimportation to the United States. The level of
public concern over this issue and associated impact that a poorly developed policy could have on the companies
suggest that additional disclosure of company policies related to reimportation could be beneficial to shareholders and
generally merits support.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Generally support shareholder proposals requesting that companies report on the financial and legal impact of
their policies regarding prescription drug reimportation, unless such information is already publicly disclosed.
› Generally support shareholder proposals requesting that companies adopt specific policies to encourage or not
constrain prescription drug reimportation.
Pharmaceutical Product Pricing
Pharmaceutical drug pricing, both within the United States and internationally, has raised many questions of the
companies that are responsible for creating and marketing these treatments. Shareholder proponents, activists and
even some legislators have called upon drug companies to restrain pricing of prescription drugs.
The high cost of prescription drugs is a vital issue for senior citizens across the country. Seniors have the greatest need
for prescription drugs, accounting for a significant portion of all prescription drug sales, but they often live on fixed
incomes and are underinsured.
Proponents note that efforts to reign-in pharmaceutical costs will not negatively impact research and development
(R&D) costs and that retail drug prices are consistently higher in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations.
Pharmaceutical companies often respond that adopting a formal drug pricing policy could put the company at a
competitive disadvantage.
Against the backdrop of the AIDS crisis in Africa, many shareholders have called on companies to address the issue of
affordable drugs for the treatment of AIDS, as well as TB and Malaria throughout the developing world. When
analyzing such resolutions, consideration should be made of the strategic implications of pricing policies in the market.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services Recommendation:
› Proposals asking a company to implement price restraints on its pharmaceutical products will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the following factors:
› Whether the proposal focuses on a specific drug and region;
› Whether the economic benefits of providing subsidized drugs (e.g., public goodwill) outweigh the costs in
terms of reduced profits, lower R&D spending, and harm to competitiveness;
› The extent that reduced prices can be offset through the company’s marketing expenditures without
significantly impacting R&D spending;
› Whether the company already limits price increases of its products;
› Whether the company already contributes life-saving pharmaceuticals to the needy and Third World
countries; and
› The extent to which peer companies implement price restraints.
›
›
›
Generally support proposals requesting that companies implement specific price restraints for its pharmaceutical
products in developing markets or targeting certain population groups.
Generally support proposals requesting that companies evaluate their global product pricing strategy, considering
the existing level of disclosure on pricing policies, any deviation from established industry pricing norms, and the
company’s existing philanthropic initiatives.
Vote for shareholder proposals that call on companies to develop a policy to provide affordable HIV, AIDS, TB and
Malaria drugs to citizens in the developing world.
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
67 of 68
2017 Taft-Hartley U.S. Proxy Voting Guidelines
This document and all of the information contained in it, including without limitation all text, data, graphs, and charts
(collectively, the "Information") is the property of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), its subsidiaries, or, in
some cases third party suppliers.
The Information has not been submitted to, nor received approval from, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission or any other regulatory body. None of the Information constitutes an offer to sell (or a solicitation of an
offer to buy), or a promotion or recommendation of, any security, financial product or other investment vehicle or any
trading strategy, and ISS does not endorse, approve, or otherwise express any opinion regarding any issuer, securities,
financial products or instruments or trading strategies.
The user of the Information assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of the Information.
ISS MAKES NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION AND
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
ORIGINALITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY, AND FITNESS for A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE) WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE INFORMATION.
Without limiting any of the foregoing and to the maximum extent permitted by law, in no event shall ISS have any
liability regarding any of the Information for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential (including lost profits),
or any other damages even if notified of the possibility of such damages. The foregoing shall not exclude or limit any
liability that may not by applicable law be excluded or limited.
The Global Leader In Corporate Governance
www.issgovernance.com
Taft-Hartley Advisory Services’ Guidelines based on AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Policy
© 2017 ISS | Institutional Shareholder Services
68 of 68